Open Banking Customer Experience Guidelines...1.3 The Open Banking Customer Journey Customer...

1.1. An Introduction to Open Banking

Open Banking Customer Experience Guidelines

Version 1.0.1 16 October 2018

Get Started

© Open Banking Limited 2018

Contents


1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Customer Experience Guidelines form part of the

Open Banking Standard Implementation Requirements

1.2 About these guidelines

1.3.The Open Banking Customer Journey

1.4 Design and experience principles

1.4.1 Customer in control

1.4.2 Customer experience principles

1.4.3 Protection for vulnerable customers

2.0 Authentication Methods

2.1 Overview

2.2 Redirection based authentication

2.2.1 Browser based redirection – AIS

2.2.1 Browser based redirection – PIS

2.2.2 App based redirection – AIS

2.2.2 App based redirection – PIS

2.3 Decoupled authentication

2.3.1 Model A: Static PSU identifier

2.3.2 Model B: ASPSP generated identifier

2.3.3 Model C: TPP generated identifier

2.3.4 Model D: PSU with a TPP account

3.0 Account Information Services (AIS)

3.1 AIS Core Journeys

3.1.1 Account Information Consent

3.1.2 Refreshing AISP access

3.1.3 Consent Dashboard & Revocation

3.1.4 Access Dashboard & Revocation

3.2 Permissions and Data Clusters for AIS journeys

3.2.1 Permissions

3.2.2 Data Clusters

3.2.3 Data Cluster Structure & Language

3.2.4 Optional Data

4.0 Payment Initiation Services (PIS)

4.1 PIS Core Journeys

4.1.1 Single Domestic Payments - a/c selection @ PISP


(Supplementary info)

4.1.2.1 Single Domestic Payments - BACS and CHAPS

4.1.3 Single Domestic Payments - a/c selection @ ASPSP

4.1.4 Single Domestic Scheduled Payments (Future Dated)

4.1.5 Standing Orders

4.1.6 International Payments

4.1.7 Bulk/Batch Payments

4.1.8 Multi-authorisation Payments

5.0 Card Based Payment Instrument Issuers (CBPIIs)

5.1 CBPII Core Journeys

5.1.1 Consent for Confirmation of Funds (CoF)


5.1.3 Confirmation of Funds - Y/N Response

5.1.4 Revocation of Consent

6.0 The CEG Checklist

6.1 Explanation of the Customer Experience Guidelines Checklist

6.2 Customer Experience Guidelines Checklist

6.2.1 Examples and additional detail for CEG Checklist questions

7.0 Appendices

7.1 Themes identified from consumer and SME research

7.2 CX Guidelines Consultation – Research Data

7.3 Deep Linking for App-to-App redirection

7.4 Payment Initiation Services (PIS) parameters and considerations

7.4.1 Domestic Standing Orders


7.4.2.1 Charge Models

7.4.3 AML - Required bank details

7.5 Card-specific Permissions and Data Clusters for AIS journeys

7.6 Open Banking Read/Write API Specification v3.0 - Standard Error Codes

7.7 Change Log

1.0 Introduction

The Customer Experience Guidelines (“CEG”) have been designed to facilitate

widespread use of Open Banking-enabled products and services in a simple and secure

manner. They bring together regulatory requirements and customer insight to create the

Open Banking Standard for both TPPs and ASPSPs.

Customers will only use Open Banking products and services if their experience matches

or betters their expectations, and information is presented in an intuitive manner that

allows them to make informed decisions. It is therefore important that the interplay

between the TPP and the ASPSP is as seamless as is possible while providing customer

control in a secure environment. In particular it is essential that customers are clearly

informed about the consent they are providing and the service they are receiving.

These Guidelines address the “Customer Journey”, that is, the process that the customer

follows from within a TPP’s online app or browser, through to authentication within the

ASPSP domain, and completion in the TPP domain.

The intended audience for these Guidelines is Open Banking Participants (ASPSPs,

AISPs, PISPs and CBPIIs) and competent authorities with regulatory oversight of any

Participant that adopts the Open Banking Standard. They should also be of use for

Participants who build their own dedicated interface or adopt any other market initiative

standard.

The contents of the CEG and CEG Checklist do not constitute legal advice. While the CEG

and CEG Checklist have been drafted with regard to relevant regulatory provisions and best

practice, they are not a complete list of the regulatory or legal obligations that apply to

Participants. Although intended to be consistent with regulations and laws in the event of

any conflict with such regulations and laws, those regulations and laws will take priority.

Participants are responsible for their own compliance with all regulations and laws that

apply to them, including without limitation, PSRs, PSD2, GDPR, consumer protection laws

and anti-money laundering regulations.

Customer Experience Guidelines | Introduction


1.1 The Customer Experience Guidelines form part of the Open Banking Standard Implementation Requirements


The European Banking Authority’s (EBA) Draft Guidelines on the contingency

mechanism exemption conditions state in Guideline 6 “where an ASPSP is implementing

a market initiative standard, it should provide to its competent authority information as to

which standard it is implementing and whether, and if so how, it has deviated from any

standard implementation requirements of the initiative”. The OBIE is therefore

developing a range of Standard Implementation Requirements.

The Customer Experience Guidelines and Checklist form part of the Standard

Implementation Requirements, and set out the customer experience required to deliver a

successful Open Banking ecosystem, alongside technical, performance, non-functional

requirements and dispute resolution practices.

The CEG Checklist has been developed for ASPSPs and TPPs to assess compliance to

this aspect of the OBIE Standard Implementation Requirements.

The CEG and CEG Checklist are consistent with:

• The Revised Payment Services Directive (PSD2) (Transposed in the UK by the

Payment Services Regulations 2017 (PSRs))

• The Regulatory Technical Standards on Strong Customer Authentication and

Common and Secure Communication (RTS))

• The UK CMA Retail Banking Market Investigation Order which applies to the nine

largest UK retail banks only (known as the CMA9)).

In developing its Standard Implementation Requirements, OBIE has undertaken

extensive engagement with different market participants, and analysis to ensure that its

standards have been designed in line with relevant regulatory and market requirements.

On this basis, where an ASPSP seeking an exemption notifies the relevant National

Competent Authority (NCA) (e.g. the FCA in the UK) that its dedicated interface follows

the OBIE Standard Implementation Requirements, we expect this will provide a level of

assurance that the ASPSP meets the requirement of RTS Article 30(5). Conversely,

when an ASPSP has deviated from the Standard Implementation Requirements, we

expect that the NCA may require additional information to enable it to consider more

closely whether the ASPSP’s implementation is compliant with the relevant regulatory

requirements. This may include the NCA requesting additional details on how and why

there has been a deviation.

For this purpose, we would expect an ASPSP to complete and submit the CEG

Checklist, providing supporting evidence as appropriate, to OBIE. This can then be

provided to the NCA in support of its application for an exemption.

Customer Experience Checklist

The CEG Checklist takes the form of key questions that have been designated as either

"required" or "recommended".

The CEG Checklist sets out which specific requirements are relevant to the Open

Banking Standard Implementation Requirements, PSD2, the RTS and the CMA Order.

Where relevant, it provides a regulatory reference (as per the CMA Order, PSD2/PSRs

and the RTS on SCA and CSC). These are marked as either mandatory, optional or

conditional in line with the definitions used across the Open Banking Standards.

For TPPs, certifying against the CEG Checklist is considered as a signal of best practice

to the marketplace.

OBIE will consider the CEG Checklist for quality assurance and compliance purposes

alongside other sources of information.


1.2 About these guidelines


These guidelines cover authentication and the core

use cases that support market propositions

Customer insight and regulation-driven principles underpin the core customer journeys

described in four sections:

• Authentication Methods: The primary forms of Authentication, in generic form, that

may be used through a variety of services and interactions.

• Account Information Services (AIS): Service propositions that are enabled or

initiated by customers (PSUs) consenting to share their payment account data with

Account Information Service Providers.

• Payment Initiation Services (PIS): Service propositions enabled by customers

(PSUs) consenting to Payment Initiation Service Providers (PISPs) initiating

payments from their payment accounts.

• Card Based Payment Instrument Issuers (CBPIIs): Service propositions enabled

by customers (PSUs) giving their consent to a CBPII to submit Confirmation of Funds

(CoF) requests to an ASPSP.

ASPSPs should be familiar with their own role and that of other participants across all

these proposition types.

TPPs (AISPs, PISPs and CBPIIs) will naturally focus on the proposition types that are

relevant to their business model, but they should still be aware of the roles of all

participants in order to ensure they understand the lines of demarcation and differences

between each type.

The customer journey is described for each of the

core use cases

Each unique journey has been broken out and described over a number of pages. They

can be then be referenced in a number of ways according to individual priority e.g.

whether the reader is, for example, a Regulatory Expert, Product Owner, Technical Lead

or CX Designer. The page types are:

• Journey description: A high-level description of the specific account information,

payment initiation or confirmation of funds customer journey.

• A journey map: This is a macro view of the customer journey, broken down by

optimal steps and customer interaction points e.g. from payment initiation through

authentication to completion.

• A ‘wireframe’ journey: This is represented by annotated ‘screens’ to identify key

messages, actions, interactions and information hierarchy, as well as process

dependencies.

• Journey annotations: This is the annotation detail referenced in the wireframes.

These consist of both CEG Checklist items informing or requiring specific messaging

or interactions etc. or CX considerations, where research has raised specific

customer priorities or concerns that should be addressed through the eventual

solution.


1.3 The Open Banking Customer Journey


For the purposes of the Customer Experience Guidelines as explained on the previous

page, for each core use case customer journey, interaction and hand off have been

broken into a set of clear, highly simplified white-label ‘wireframes’. These are

intended to be platform agnostic, to place focus on only the key elements within (e.g.

messages, fields, checkboxes) and the specific number of steps that the customer

must navigate. In all cases they are constructed around the primary Open Banking

Customer Journey, which is illustrated to the right.

At the core of all Open Banking customer journeys is the mechanism by which the

PSU gives consent to a TPP (AISP or PISP or CBPII) to access account information

held at their ASPSP or to initiate payments from their ASPSP account.

In general, simplified terms, the consent request is initiated in the TPP domain

(step 1 right). The PSU is then directed to the domain of its ASPSP for authentication

(step 2 right). Then, once authentication is complete, the ASPSP will be able to

respond to the TPP’s account information or payment initiation request and redirect

the PSU back to the TPP for confirmation and completion of the journey (step 3 right).


1.4 Design and experience principles

The OBIE has employed a number of design and experience principles to create the

CEG. This section lays out the principles of informed decision making, providing

customers with well designed experiences (using the principles of control, speed,

transparency, security and trust) as well as how to protect vulnerable customers.



Open Banking products and services must place

the customer in control

ASPSPs and TPPs should design customer journeys equivalent to or better than

the journeys described in these guidelines in order to deliver the best possible

experience and outcome.

Open Banking products and services must therefore enable:

• Informed decision making: Customer journeys must be intuitive and

information must be easily assimilated in order to ensure informed customer

decision making.

• Simple and easy navigation: There must be no unnecessary steps, delay or

friction in the customer journey.

• Parity of Experience: The experience available to a PSU when authenticating

a journey via a TPP should involve no more steps, delay or friction in the

customer journey than the equivalent experience they have when interacting

directly with their ASPSP.

• Familiarity and trust: The customer must only need to use the login credentials

provided by the ASPSP.



The Open Banking Implementation Entity (OBIE) has undertaken considerable customer research over 18 months in order to understand how to enable customers to make informed

decisions while enjoying a simple and easy navigation and a secure customer journey. A key principle throughout has been to ensure clarity of information, presented and described in

a manner that ensures that Open Banking customer journeys are easy to understand, thereby enabling customers to make informed decisions. The results of this research have been

shared with stakeholders as the foundations for Open Banking have been established.

The OBIE recognises that consumers and SMEs are not yet familiar with Open

Banking enabled propositions. They have therefore had to interpret the concepts to

be investigated based on their experience and the explanations provided in the

research groups or panels. This form of ex-ante research has some limitations as

there is often a difference between what customers say they will do and what they

then actually do. Observed behaviours and attitudes from respondents have at times

been contrary. For example, respondents will express a concern that they want to be

secure and protected, but in practice they value convenience and will react with

frustration to complex journeys often skimming the most important information. The

consequence of this is that customers may not review the information sufficiently and

may make decisions that they might later wish to reconsider. It has become clear that

it is extremely important to minimise unnecessary information and process, and then

to package only the most important information in an easily understandable, intuitive

way so that the customer can actually assimilate the information and therefore make

better informed decisions.

OBIE research has therefore identified information and steps which assist the

customer as well as unnecessary steps, delays, inputs or additional information that

may lead to customer frustration and subsequent drop out, or a failure to review

important relevant information. In future research it is expected that further

refinements based on ex-post data will be possible.

We examine the nature of both useful and unhelpful elements of the customer

journey below.

Useful elements in the customer journey

Many customers are prone to skim through the information presented to them when

setting up online products because the information is not well presented. In their

desire to achieve the promised benefit, insufficient notice is taken of the implications

of their actions, or the terms and conditions. It is commonplace to discover, once they

have completed the customer journey, that they cannot spontaneously describe what

they have just agreed to. The research has shown that a better understanding can be

achieved by carefully designing the customer journey, and reveals that the solution is

about effective, intuitive presentation of information, and is not about introducing

steps to slow the customer down or repeating information. The following methods

have been found to be the most effective:

• Effective messages and navigation appropriate to the redirection screens when

the customer is redirected from the TPP to the ASPSP, and then again when the

customer is redirected back from the ASPSP to the TPP. For a customer that has

granted consent to the TPP the redirection screen creates a clear sense of

separation as they enter the ASPSP’s domain where they authenticate, before

clearly being passed back to the TPP. This provides a familiar and trusted

experience to the customer and signposts the customer’s journey from one

domain to the other.




• Providing useful information presented in an intuitive and easily consumable way.

The principle here is to ensure that the information that the customer is presented

with is kept to a minimum. If it is unavoidably necessary for the TPP to convey more

complex information, it is more likely to be read and understood when presented as a

series of smaller amounts of information across more than one screen. This is a

much more effective method than the use of a single text-heavy screen.

• Providing supplementary information at specific points in the customer journey is

useful, helping the customer to understand the process as well as ensuring

comprehension of a product or offer and its implications. If executed well, it will

enhance the customer journey and does not lead to increased propensity to drop off.

Unhelpful elements in the customer journey

The research has shown that superfluous information, poor or confusing choice of

words, repetition, large amounts of text, too many steps or avoidable delays in the

customer journey can lead to frustration, an even greater tendency to skim, and

ultimately increase customer drop off. The following unhelpful elements were identified in

the research and must be avoided:

• A customer authentication journey that takes too long and requires the use of

separate devices such as one time password generators, especially if applied

multiple times in the customer journey.

• Where there are fewer screens but a significant amount of text on the screen. This is

particularly evident when this requires customers to scroll up and down the screen to

progress the customer journey.

• Providing superfluous information that does not add to the customer’s understanding

or trust, especially when presented in a separate step or screen.

• Delays such as slow loading times, as well as web pages or apps that have not been

effectively debugged, and unexpected crashing of web pages or apps.

• Inappropriate use of language, particularly language which may create a level of

concern, uncertainty and doubt when going through the customer journey.

• The use of language that is too long, complex or legalistic to be easily understood

when going through the customer journey.

• Asking for the same information twice, and asking for information for which there is

no obvious purpose, e.g. replaying the consent to the customer that was granted to

the TPP, or asking for a PIN when it is not needed.

• Forcing the customer to open a new browser window during the customer journey,

and having to toggle between screens in order to progress.

• Introducing the requirement for a customer to input information that they don’t readily

have to hand, such as unique customer reference numbers

• Requesting input of information that could reasonably be expected to be pre-

populated once the customer has authenticated.

• Failing to differentiate between new users and experienced regular users who may

want to shorten the customer journey without exposing themselves to risk.




The Open Banking customer experience must ensure informed decision making while

remaining understandable, intuitive and effective. The customer experience must be

shaped and positioned into content and functionality that clearly communicates and

facilitates purpose, intent and relevance.

This is especially true in a transactional context where customers need to know and

understand at all times:

• Where they are in a specific process (and what they should expect from that process)

• Where they have come from

• What options, actions or steps they have in front of them (if any)

• The (implicit) consequences of taking those actions or next steps

• An unambiguous signal, feedback and/or response, once that action is taken

It is essential to move beyond the pure mechanics of the transactional process and into

a meaningful, supportive and trusted experience that directly addresses the customer’s

needs, goals and concerns. This can be achieved in the way a transaction is structured,

but also how it is expressed, designed for and organised around a range of fluctuating

human needs.

A series of guiding ‘experience principles’ are outlined here that can be, through careful

design, baked into a process or transaction, and dialled up and down where certain

interactions become more critical.

These guiding experience principles are deeply customer-centred, shaped by research

and insight that reflects and meets specific customer needs. They are used to drive and

focus design and User Experience (UX) decisions i.e. what kind of widget, interaction,

font, colour, technology, UX and User Interface (UI) best serves the aspirations and

requirements of the business but also meets the needs of the customer in simple,

effective ways.

Extensive customer research undertaken by OBIE has demonstrated certain recurring

themes that customers deeply care about or are worried by. To promote engagement,

understanding and ensure adoption these must be addressed, to varying degrees, within

each of the Open Banking customer journeys described in these guidelines.

To support and achieve the goal of creating trust, these themes have been aggregated

and synthesised into a number of driving experience principles for Open Banking. These

principles underpin the range of core journeys and key customer interactions described

throughout these guidelines.

Trust Security Speed

Transparency

Control



The introduction of any kind of new

transaction, product or service -

especially online - can create an

opportunity for deeper engagement.

However, it can also create barriers

through poor implementation. From

a consumer perspective, this is often

about a perceived sense of control.

If customers feel they understand

what is going on in a process, are

able to make informed decisions and

choices on their own terms -

including recourse to change their

mind - it provides a sense of

ownership and control over what is

happening. In a transactional

context, where money and data are

potentially at stake, getting this right

is essential.

For Open Banking, control comes

from providing the the right tools and

clarity of information at the right time

(e.g. knowing the account balance at

the point of payment, or knowing

that they can view and revoke

consents given when they feel it is

appropriate to do so).

TPPs and ASPSPs need to consider

how they provide this sense of

ownership and specific optionality

throughout - enabling customers to

feel this is a process they are both

choosing and in charge of.

Trust Security Speed Transparency Control

Speed must be appropriate to the

customer and the journey they are

undertaking. Convenient, speedy

and intuitive design is a question of

execution and interaction.

In transactional context, anything

that seems more time consuming or

onerous than customers are used to

is going to represent a barrier to

adoption. We have to manage and

optimise each interaction, as well as

hand-off between systems for

speed, clarity and efficiency, but

without sacrificing the principles of

security and control.

In addition, we have to be mindful

that speed of transaction or

interaction is not necessarily about

the ‘fastest possible’ experience. As

we have indicated, we must support

informed decision making through

comprehension and clarity

(especially in the context of AIS),

allowing customers to, above all,

move at a pace that suits them.

TPPs and ASPSPs need to ensure

that Open Banking customer

journeys remain flexible enough to

support different customer contexts,

expectations and situations and –

critically - avoid any unnecessary

friction in the completion of any

journey.

Transparency of choice, action, and

importantly the consequences of

actions or sharing of data is crucial

to promoting the benefits of Open

Banking, creating engagement and

supporting adoption.

In new transactional scenarios

where customers are being

encouraged to share personal

information this is critical. It is not

only about communicating the

benefits of a new service, but being

explicitly clear on what is required

from the customer, why it is

required, and for what purposes.

Customers need to be able to make

an informed decision and, in turn,

understand the consequences of

that decision.

Sharing information is seen as

unavoidable, and a trade-off for

convenience and benefits. And while

this is a great opportunity for TPPs

and ASPSPs, the value exchange

for the consumer needs to be

explicitly clear.

At the same time, we do not want to

overburden the customer or weigh

down the business opportunity with

excessive explanations.

Transparency is about providing

progressive levels of information, in

plain language, that inform and

support customer decisions.

In the context of Security the key

concerns for customers are fraud,

which everyone understands, and

data privacy, which is less well

defined in the minds of consumers,

since not everyone has the same

idea about what ‘my data’ actually

means (e.g. is it my name and

address? Passwords? Names of my

kids? Transactional history?) Nor is

it well understood what businesses

even do with their data once they

get their hands on it. Such concerns

can be even deeper amongst SMEs.

Explicit clarity and reassurance will

be required in relation to data

definition, usage, security and above

all, protection.

In addition to personal data,

transactional (data) security is the

critical factor to ensure adoption of

PISP services. As a minimum, TPPs

and ASPSPs must ensure this is no

less than consumers expect today.

As a new service, all security

messaging should be clear and

reassuring in tone, but not alarmist.

Customers are aware of the risks of

sharing personal information and as

expected some types of customer,

particularly older demographics, may

initially express cautiousness and

nervousness.

It is therefore critical to establish and

reinforce trustworthiness - trust in

the service provider, trust in the

transactional process and trust in

the role and relationship with their

ASPSPs, especially in a payment

context where traditional, deeply

established alternatives remain

available.

The principles of control, speed,

transparency and security combine

to create a trusted environment for

the customer.

TPPs and ASPSPs need to

consider, engender and promote

values of trust through every part of

their Open Banking customer

journeys, to foster understanding,

acceptance and adoption of new

innovative products and services.



1.4.3 Protection for vulnerable customers


Customers deemed as vulnerable, or in vulnerable circumstances, may be significantly

less able to effectively manage or represent their own interests than the average

customer, and more likely to suffer detriment. This may take the form of unusual

spending, taking on unnecessary financial commitments or inadvertently triggering an

unwanted event . Any customer can become vulnerable at any time in their life, for

example through serious illness or personal problems such as divorce, bereavement or

loss of income. Consent and data privacy issues are particularly relevant and important

for people with mental health issues. Work done by the Money and Mental Health Policy

Institute in the UK has shown the need to emphasise informed decision making, with

appropriate steps and information in online experiences in order to help those with

mental health problems to make informed decisions, understand the potential

consequence of their decisions, or even deter a particular course of action.

ASPSPs have a particular responsibility to identify and protect vulnerable customers,

needing to pay attention to possible indicators of vulnerability at a holistic level and have

policies in place to deal with customers where those indicators suggest they may be at

greater risk of harm. For those customers identified as vulnerable, the policies applied

should be implemented at customer level, not at the transaction level or not specifically

to Open Banking, just as is the case for vulnerable customers using other products

provided by the ASPSP.

ASPSPs should take the following steps for vulnerable customers using products

that make use of Open Banking:

• Provide support for vulnerable customers incorporating information from the Open

Banking channel. ASPSPs should consider this issue holistically, treating Open

Banking as they would any other customer channel. The ASPSP, having insight into

customer behaviour, is well placed to provide the appropriate support, recognising

that no single Open Banking customer journey should trigger vulnerability flags to the

ASPSP.

• Provide useful and informative access dashboards within the ASPSPs domain that

give vulnerable customers the control they need over their financial affairs and

personal data. Vulnerable customers should be able to see full details of all the

consents granted to TPPs, the data shared, the expiry date and to have the ability to

revoke their consent.

• It is suggested that provision should be made in the ASPSP’s access dashboard

enabling customers to switch on a summary information step as an opted-in choice.

This represents a final chance for the customer to pause and review within the

ASPSP’s domain so that this step is shown to them in all Open Banking customer

journeys.


2.0 Authentication methods

One of the primary objectives of the Customer Experience Guidelines is to provide

simplification and consistency across all Open Banking implementations. As such, we

have defined a core set of authentication methods that can and should be used, subject

to the scope and flexibility of any payment initiation and/or account information services

provided by TPPs.

Customer Experience Guidelines | Authentication methods


2.1 Overview

The EBA notes that "there would appear to currently be three main ways or methods

of carrying out the authentication procedure of the PSU through a dedicated

interface, and APIs in particular, namely redirection, embedded approaches and

decoupled approaches (or a combination thereof). In the cases of redirection and

decoupled approaches, PSU’s authentication data are exchanged directly between

PSUs and ASPSPs, as opposed to embedded approaches, in which PSU's

authentication data are exchanged between TPPs and ASPSPs through the

interface."

PSD2 requires strong customer authentication to be performed in certain

circumstances. The RTS requires that this application of strong customer

authorisation is based on the use of elements, which are categorised as knowledge

(something only the user knows), possession (something only the user possesses)

and inherence (something the user is). These elements require adequate security

features, which include ensuring that they are applied independently, so the breach

of any element does not compromise the reliability off the other.

The Open Banking 2.0 standards specified redirection authentication flows only and

the current ASPSP implementations of redirection are predominantly browser-based,

whereby the PSU is redirected from the TPP app or website to the ASPSP’s website

in order to authenticate. It is essential that when redirection is implemented it also

allows for the PSU to use their ASPSP mobile app to authenticate, if the PSU uses

this method of authentication when accessing their ASPSP’s channel directly.

Redirection has a specific TPP channel and device dependency and therefore

cannot support channel agnostic use cases that involve telephony, POS, and IoT

devices, or where physical PSU interaction is either not possible or not required

within the TPP channel. These use cases can be supported using a decoupled

approach to authentication.



In view of the above, the Open Banking 3.0 standards will support both

redirection and decoupled authentication to allow a PSU to use the same

authentication mechanisms while using an AISP or PISP as they use when

accessing the ASPSP directly.

The three general principles that apply relating to authentication are:

1. ASPSPs authenticate: PSU needs to go through a strong customer

authentication (SCA) at their ASPSP in order for a TPP request (i.e. access

to information or payment initiation) to be actioned by the ASPSP.

2. PSUs should have their normal authentication methods available:

A PSU should be able to use the elements they prefer to authenticate with

their ASPSP if supported when interacting directly with their ASPSP.

3. Parity of experience: The experience available to a PSU when

authenticating a journey via a TPP should involve no more steps, delay or

friction in the customer journey than the equivalent experience they have with

their ASPSP when interacting directly.

2.2 Redirection based authentication

Redirection based authentication has a range of possible experiences for a PSU

based on whether the PSU has an ASPSP app or not, and the device on which the

PSU is consuming the TPP (AISP/PISP/CBPII) service.

We have used one example of AISP and PISP journey to demonstrate how

redirection flows must work. These apply to variations in AIS/PIS/CBPII journeys

related to the order of application of SCA and are covered in section 3, 4 and 5.


Featured journeys

2.2.1 Browser based redirection - AIS

2.2.1 Browser based redirection - PIS

2.2.2 App based redirection - AIS

2.2.2 App based redirection - PIS


Account Selection

Successful Completion of Account

Information Request

AISP ASPSP AISP

AuthenticationASPSP Selection & Data Cluster Consent

Steps

AISP to ASPSP Redirection Screen

ASPSP to AISP Redirection Screen



Relevant Customer Insight and

supporting regulation

> View CX Customer Research

> View CEG Checklist

User Journey Wireframes Requirements and Considerations

PSU Authentication with the ASPSP using browser based redirection from an AISP for an AIS request.

Enables a PSU to authenticate with their ASPSP while using an AISP for AIS service, using the same web based authentication method which the

PSU uses when accessing the ASPSP web channel directly.

This model works when the PSU is consuming the AISP service on a device that does not have the ASPSP app, or the PSU does not have the

ASPSP mobile app.


Account Selection


Information Request

AISP ASPSP AISP

AuthenticationASPSP Selection & Data Cluster Consent

Steps



Please enter your security credentials

to log in - These credentials will not be

shared

Continue

Enter your user ID

Use your Smartkey to generate a security code

Enter your memorable word

1st 3rd2nd 6th4th 5th

YOUR ASPSP

Payment information:

Bank name: YOUR ASPSP

Sortcode: 48-59-60

Account no.: 12346879

You will be taken to YOUR ASPSP to make the payment securely.

Transfering you to

your ASPSP

You are now leaving TPP and

we are securely transferring you

over to your ASPSP



Sortcode: 48-59-60



Transferring you to your

ASPSP



over to your ASPSP

Transferring you back to

TPP

You have securely logged off

from ASPSP and will shortly

transferred back to TPP



1 2

3

4

6 5

7

8





CEG Checklist Requirements Regulatory

Reference

CEG Checklist

Reference Participant

Implementation

Requirements

1 AISP must initially ask the PSU to identify the ASPSP so that the consent

request can be constructed in line with the ASPSP's data clusters.

• PSR Regs.

68(3)(a), 69(2)

and 70(3)(a)

• FCA Approach

Document

paragraphs 17.46

and 17.47

8 AISP Required

3

The redirection must take the PSU to the ASPSP web page (desktop/mobile)

for authentication purposes only without introducing any additional screens.

The web based authentication must have no more than the number of steps

that the PSU would experience when directly accessing the web based ASPSP

channel (desktop/mobile).

• Trustee P3/P4

letter Actions P3

A2 and P3 A6

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2 (d)

1 ASPSP Required

5 PSU must be able to confirm the account(s) which they would like the

AISP to have access to without having to go through any further unnecessary

screens.

• Trustee P3/P4

letter Actions P3

A2 and P3 A6

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2 (d)

1 ASPSP Required

8 AISP should confirm the successful completion of account information data

request. • n/a 18 AISP Recommended

CX Considerations

2 ASPSP should make the PSU aware that they will be taken to their ASPSP for

authentication.

4 ASPSP should make the PSU aware that the PSU login details will not be

visible to the AISP.

6 ASPSP should have intermediary screen which indicates the status of the

request and informing the PSU that they will be automatically taken back to the

AISP.

7 ASPSP should inform the PSU on the intermediary screen that their session

with the ASPSP is closed.

To demonstrate web based redirection part of the journey we have used AISP initial setup (Sec 3.1.1) as one example.

The redirection flow applies to other AIS journeys covered in detail under Section 3.



PISP to ASPSP Redirection

Screen

ASPSP to PISP Redirection

Screen

Successful Payment Initiation

Confirmation

PISP ASPSP PISP

AuthenticationEnters Account Details & Confirms

Payment



User Journey Wireframes





Requirements and Considerations

PSU Authentication with the ASPSP using browser based redirection for a PIS request.

Enables a PSU to authenticate with their ASPSP while using a TPP for PIS service, using the same web based authentication method which they

use when accessing the ASPSP web channel directly.

This model works when the PSU is consuming the PIS service on a device that does not have the ASPSP app, or the PSU does not have the

ASPSP mobile app.



Screen


Screen


Confirmation

PISP ASPSP PISP


Payment

To consent to this transaction,

check the details below

Payee name:

Sort code:

Account no.:

Payment ref.:

Bank name:

Sort code:

Account number:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

MERCHANT LTD

Your ASPSP

48-59-60

12346879

Payee information

Payment information

You will be securely transferred to YOUR

ASPSP to authenticate and make the payment

ConfirmBack

PISP

Payment total

Total

£31.94

£1000.00

Transaction ID:

Total paid:

0-9328-472398

£31.94

Your payment has been submitted

Thank you

Bank name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Order reference:

Your ASPSP

48-59-60

12346879

MERCHANT LTD

Payment details

Continue

Do you want to save these payment

details for future transactions?

PISP

Continue

Enter your user ID

Use your Smartkey to generate a security code

Enter your memorable word

1st 3rd2nd 6th4th 5th

Forgotten your memorable word?

Forgotten your Username?

YOUR ASPSP

Authenticate to make payment

£31.94 to MERCHANT



Sortcode: 48-59-60



Transfering you to

your ASPSP



over to your ASPSP



Sortcode: 48-59-60




are being securely transferred

to your ASPSP to authenticate

Payment details

£31.94 to MERCHANTPayment details

£31.94 to MERCHANT



be transferred back to TPP



1

2

3

4

6

5

7

8

9

What the research says

Research amongst consumers has shown that 29% of participants

actively prefer a browser based PIS journey for a single domestic

payment, whilst 32% prefer an app based journey. Those

preferring a browser based journey refer to security and ease to

explain their choice. Those preferring the app based alternative

select it because they deem it easier than the web based

experience, with fewer mentioning security.

> See more



5

These details must be displayed as part of the authentication journey on at least one

of the following screens without introducing additional confirmation screens(unless

supplementary information is required, refer to section 4.1.2)

5

5




Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1

PSU payment Account Selection

PISPs must provide PSUs at least one of the following options:

• enter their Payer's payment Account Identification details

• select their Account Identification details (this assumes they have been

saved previously)

• n/a 24 PISP Required

2 The PISP must communicate information clearly to the PSU when obtaining

consent in order to initiate the payment order.

• PSR Regs.

68(3)(a), 69(2)

and 70(3)(a)

• FCA Approach

Document

paragraphs 17.46

and 17.47

8 PISP Required

4 The redirection must take the PSU to a ASPSP web page (desktop/mobile) for

authentication purposes only without introducing any additional screens.

• Trustee P3/P4

letter Actions P3

A2 and P3 A6

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2 (d)

1 ASPSP Required

5

ASPSPs must display as minimum the Payment Amount, Currency and the

Payee Account Name on to make the PSU aware of these details(unless an

SCA exemption is being applied).

These details must be displayed as part of the authentication journey on at

least one of the following screens without introducing additional confirmation

screens(unless supplementary information is required, refer to section 4.1.2)

1. PISP to ASPSP redirection screen

2. Authentication screen

3. ASPSP to PISP redirection screen

• RTS Art. 5(1)(a) 28 ASPSP Required

6 The ASPSP web based authentication must have no more than the number of

steps that the PSU would experience when making a payment directly through

the ASPSP web based channel (desktop/mobile).

• Trustee P3/P4

letter Actions P3

A2 and P3 A6

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2 (d)

1 ASPSP Required

9 PSU must be redirected straight back to the PISP website/app on the same

device where PISP displays confirmation of successful initiation. • PSR Reg. 44(1) 26 PISP Required

CX Considerations

3 ASPSP should make the PSU aware through an intermediary screen that they

are being taken to their ASPSP for authentication to complete the payment.


request and informs the PSU that they will be automatically taken back to the

PISP.



To demonstrate web based redirection we have used one variation of PIS journey (Sec 4.1.1) as an example, where the

ASPSP receives all the details of the payment order from the PISP. This redirection flow applies to other variations of PIS

journeys covered in detail under Section 4.






Information Request

AISP ASPSP AISP

AuthenticationASPSP Selection & Data Cluster Consent Steps

Account Selection









PSU authentication with the ASPSP using the ASPSP mobile app installed on the same device on which the PSU is consuming the AISP service.

Enables the PSU to authenticate with the ASPSP while using an AISP for AIS service using the same ASPSP app based authentication method

which they use when accessing the ASPSP mobile channel directly.

AISP service could be web based or app based. The redirection must directly invoke the ASPSP app to enable the PSU to authenticate and must

not require the PSU to provide any PSU identifier or other credentials to the AISP.





Information Request

AISP ASPSP AISP

AuthenticationASPSP Selection & Data Cluster Consent Steps

Account Selection

Face ID for “ASPSP”

Press the sensor to authenticate

Cancel

YOUR ASPSP



Sortcode: 48-59-60



Transfering you to

your ASPSP



over to your ASPSP



Sortcode: 48-59-60




ASPSP



over to your ASPSP


TPP






1

2

3

4

6

5

7






Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1 AISP must initially ask PSU to identify ASPSP so that the consent request can

be constructed in line with the ASPSP's data cluster capabilities.

• PSR Regs.

68(3)(a), 69(2) and

70(3)(a)

• FCA Approach

Document

paragraphs 17.46

and 17.47

8 AISP Required

3

If the PSU has an ASPSP app installed on the same device the redirection

must invoke the ASPSP app for authentication purposes only without

introducing any additional screens. The ASPSP app based authentication must

have no more than the number of steps that the PSU would experience when

directly accessing the ASPSP mobile app(biometric, passcode, credentials).

• Trustee P3/P4

letter Actions P3 A2

and P3 A6

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2 (d)

1 ASPSP Required

4

After authentication the PSU must be deep linked within the app to confirm

the account(s) which they would like the AISP to have access to without having

to go through any further mandatory screens.

For details on deep linking see Appendix 7.3.

• Trustee P3/P4


and P3 A6

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2 (d)

1 ASPSP Required

7 The AISP should confirm the successful completion of the account information

request. • n/a 18 AISP Recommended

CX Considerations

2

AISP should make the PSU aware that they will be taken to their ASPSP for

authentication.

5

ASPSP should have intermediary screen which indicates the status of the

request and informing the PSU that they will be automatically taken back to the

AISP.

6

ASPSP should inform the PSU on the intermediary screen that their session


To demonstrate an app based redirection part of the journey we have used AISP initial setup (Sec 3.1.1) as one example.

The app based redirection flow applies to other AIS journeys covered in detail under Section 3.




Screen


Screen

Successful Payment Initiation Confirmation

PISP ASPSP PISP


Payment









PSU authentication, with the ASPSP using the ASPSP mobile app installed on the same device on which the PSU is consuming the PISP service.

Enables the PSU to authenticate with the ASPSP while using a PISP for PIS, service using the same ASPSP app based authentication method

that they use when accessing the ASPSP mobile channel directly.

The PISP service could be web based or app based. The redirection must directly invoke the ASPSP app to enable the PSU to authenticate, and

must not require the PSU to provide any PSU identifier or other credentials to the PISP.



Screen


Screen

Successful Payment Initiation Confirmation

PISP ASPSP PISP


Payment



Payee name:

Sort code:

Account no.:

Payment ref.:

Bank name:

Sort code:

Account number:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

MERCHANT LTD

Your ASPSP

48-59-60

12346879

Payee information

Payment information



ConfirmBack

PISP

Payment total

Total

£31.94

£1000.00

Transaction ID:

Total paid:

0-9328-472398

£31.94


Thank you

Bank name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Order reference:

Your ASPSP

48-59-60

12346879

MERCHANT LTD

Payment details

Continue



PISP

Fingerprint ID for “ASPSP”

Press the Home Button to Access

Cancel

YOUR ASPSP


Amount:

To:

£31.94

MERCHANT



Sortcode: 48-59-60



Transfering you to

your ASPSP



over to your ASPSP



Sortcode: 48-59-60






Payment details


£31.94 to MERCHANT






1

2

3

4

6

5

7

8

9


Consumer research has shown that people feel authentication

via Fingerprint ID adds a reassuring sense of security to the

journey.

> See more



5

5


of the following screens without introducing additional confirmation screens(unless


5




Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1 PISP must allow the PSU to either enter the account details or select the

account with their ASPSP. • n/a 24 PISP Required

2 The PISP must communicate information clearly to the PSU when obtaining

consent in order to initiate the payment order.

• PSR Regs.

68(3)(a), 69(2) and

70(3)(a)

• FCA Approach

Document

paragraphs 17.46

and 17.47

8 PISP Required

4 If the PSU has an ASPSP app installed on the same device the redirection

must invoke the ASPSP app for authentication purposes only without

introducing any additional screens.

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.1(b)

• EBA Opinion

paragraph 50

• Trustee P3/P4

letter Action P3 A6

5a ASPSP Required

5

ASPSPs must display as minimum the Payment Amount, Currency and the

Payee Account Name on to make the PSU aware of these details(unless an

SCA exemption is being applied).

These details must be displayed as part of the authentication journey on at

least one of the following screens without introducing additional confirmation

screens(unless supplementary information is required, refer to section 4.1.2)





6 The ASPSP app based authentication must have no more than the number of

steps that the PSU would experience when directly accessing the ASPSP

mobile app (biometric, passcode, credentials).

• Trustee P3/P4


and P3 A6

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2 (d)

1 ASPSP Required

9 PSU must be redirected straight back to the PISP website/app on the same

device where PISP displays confirmation of successful initiation. • PSR Reg. 44(1) 26 PISP Required

CX Considerations

3 PISP should provide messaging to inform PSU that they will be taken to their

ASPSP to complete the payment.


request and informs the PSU that they will be automatically taken back to the

PISP.



To demonstrate an app based redirection part of the journey we have used one variation of PIS journey (Sec 4.1.1) as an

example, where the ASPSP receives all the details of the payment order from the PISP.

This redirection flow applies to other variations of PIS journeys covered in detail under Section 4.




2.2.3 App-to-browser redirection – AIS

It is possible that a PSU using a mobile device does not have their ASPSP mobile app

installed, or their ASPSP does not provide an app at all. In these instances, the TPP app

will need to launch the native mobile browser in order to present the PSU with their

ASPSP's web channel to authenticate.

It is imperative in these circumstances that the browser channel has been optimised for

mobile browser and device type.

2.2.4 Browser-to-app redirection

Conversely, a TPP may be browser only, but this should not preclude a PSU from

having their ASPSP app invoked if the PSU is using a mobile browser, and has the

ASPSP app installed on their device. In this situation the TPP browser should invoke the

app for authentication, and following authentication the PSU needs to be redirected back

to the TPP browser.

If a PSU is using a desktop to access the TPP, then under the redirection model the

journey will have to be completed on the ASPSP browser channel. Only with Decoupled

authentication can the PSU use their app to authenticate in this situation.





Sortcode: 48-59-60



Transfering you to

your ASPSP



over to your ASPSP



Sortcode: 48-59-60




ASPSP



over to your ASPSP


TPP




2.2.5 Effective use of redirection screens

Within a typical redirection journey, a customer is presented with two redirection screens by

the ASPSP:

• Redirection from the TPP domain to ASPSP domain, after the PSU has provided consent to

the TPP for the account information or payment initiation service.

• Redirection from the ASPSP domain to TPP domain, after the ASPSP has authenticated

the PSU.

The research has suggested that the redirection screens are a useful part of the process,

providing customer trust. The following reasons are noted:

• They help customers navigate their online journey and inform them of what is going to

happen next.

• They help create a clear sense of separation between the TPP’s domain and the ASPSP’s

domain.

The research has suggested the messaging on the redirection screens serves to reassure

the customer that they are in control, and helps engender trust. For example, customers will

be more willing to trust the process if they feel there is a partner (TPP or ASPSP) on their

side that is known and reputable (use language such as ‘we’, ‘our’). In this sense, use of

words that indicate that the customer is in control and taking the lead are key, as these are

indications that the TPP or the ASPSP is working with or for the customer.



A two to three second delay on the redirections screens, may

encourage wider take up without causing irritation as the time

delay provides reassurance of the bank’s involvement. This is

important to older consumers and the less financially savvy.

> See more

2.3 Decoupled authentication

A major addition to the Open Banking standards known as “Decoupled”

authentication, where typically the PSU uses a separate, secondary device to

authenticate with the ASPSP. This model allows for a number of innovative solutions

and has the added benefit of allowing a PSU to use their mobile phone to

authenticate, taking advantage of biometrics for SCA, where they are engaging with

a PISP through a separate terminal such as a point of sale (POS) device.

We have used examples for a PIS journey, but the same principles apply for a AIS

and CBPII journeys.

Under the Decoupled standard, the following customer experiences are available:



Featured journeys

2.3.1 Model A: Static PSU identifier

2.3.2 Model B: ASPSP generated identifier

2.3.3 Model C: TPP generated identifier

2.3.4 Model D: PSU with a TPP account

Device 1

Device 2

PISP - WEB ASPSP APP PISP - WEB

AuthenticationPayment Confirmation & Original Device Referral

Push Notification

Select ASPSP, Select Mobile App

Available & Enter ID

Payment Information Summary & Proceed

Confirm Transaction

2.3.1 Model A: Static PSU identifier PSU provides a static identifier to the TPP (AISP/PISP/CBPII) which is passed to ASPSP to identify the PSU







CEG Checklist Requirements

A decoupled authentication flow where the PSU provides a static identifier to the TPP (AISP/PISP/CBPII) which is used by the ASPSP to notify the

PSU, such that the PSU can authenticate using the ASPSP app on a separate device.

This enables the PSU to use the same app based authentication method with their ASPSP they use when accessing the ASPSP mobile app directly.

This model is best suited to TPP apps with good user input options (e.g. website on PC/laptop), but also where POS terminals can scan debit card numbers and automatically resolve the ASPSP if these are used as a customer identifiers.

The exact type of identifier supported by the ASPSP must be published by the ASPSP.

CX Considerations





Research shows that consumers are familiar with decoupled

authentication when making a payment or setting up a new

payment. This means that, if PIS journey designs follow similar

patterns, consumers will be comfortable with them. Many

welcome the additional level of security decoupled

authentication provides.

> See more

1

2

3

4 5

6

7

8

User Journey Wireframes CEG Checklist Requirements CX Considerations





Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1




• select their Account Identification details (this assumes they have been saved previously)


5 After the PSU enters the specified identifier, if the PSU has an ASPSP app then the ASPSP must notify the PSU through the ASPSP app for authentication

purposes without introducing any additional screens. The notification must clearly mention the payment request with the amount and the payee.

• Trustee P3/P4 letter Actions P3 A2

and P3 A6

• EBA Draft Guideline 5.2 (d)

• RTS Art. 5(1)(a)

1

28 ASPSP Required

6 The ASPSP app based authentication must have no more than the number of steps that the PSU would experience when directly accessing the ASPSP



and P3 A6


1 ASPSP Required

8 The PISP must confirm successful confirmation of payment initiation • PSR.Reg 44(1) 26 PISP Required

To demonstrate a Model A based decoupled journey we have used one variation of PIS journey (Sec 4.1.1) as an example,

where the ASPSP receives all the details of the payment order from the TPP.

This flow applies to other variations of PIS journeys covered in detail under Section 4, AISP journeys covered under Section 3

and CBPII journeys covered under Section 5.





CX Considerations

2 The PISP should present the PSU the authentication options supported by the ASPSP which in turn can be supported by the TPP

device/channel (for e.g. A TPP kiosk that can only support authentication by ASPSP mobile app).

3 If the PISP and the ASPSP supports Model A then the TPP should request from the PSU the identifier which is supported by their ASPSP.

4 The PISP should make the PSU aware about how this identifier will be used.

7

If the PSU is logged off from the ASPSP app, the ASPSP must make the PSU aware that they have been logged off and notify them to check

back on the originating TPP app.



2.3.2 Model B: ASPSP generated identifier PSU provides an ASPSP generated unique identifier to the TPP (AISP/PISP/CBPII) which is then passed back to ASPSP to identify the PSU








A decoupled authentication flow where the PSU provides a dynamic identifier generated with their ASPSP to the TPP(AISP/PISP/CBPII), which is

then used by the ASPSP to identify the PSU through the ASPSP app to authenticate and action the TPP request.

This model is best suited to a TPP app that can "capture" the code from the ASPSP app (e.g. by scanning a QR code).

Alternatively, the PSU can be prompted to type in an identifier in the TPP App. This may be a long series of characters and may result in a sub-

optimal customer experience.





Research shows that consumers are familiar with decoupled

authentication when making a payment or setting up a new

payment. This means that, if PIS journey designs follow similar

patterns, consumers will be comfortable with them. Many

welcome the additional level of security decoupled

authentication provides.

> See more

We have illustrated an example where the dynamic identifier is a QR code and is scannable by the TPP. The code generated by the ASPSP is however not limited to QR code.

The general guidance is that the code generation with the ASPSP should not introduce friction in the journey.

3

4

6

5

8

9

7

1 2






Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1,2 Not shown in the diagram but as in 1 & 2 in Model A. • RTS Art. 36(4) 22 PISP Required

4 PSU uses the ASPSP app to generate the unique identifier.

• EBA Opinion

paragraph 50

• Trustee P3/P4

letter Action P4

A2

6 ASPSP Recommended

6 After the PSU provides the ASPSP app generated identifier to the PISP then

the ASPSP must display the payment request within the same session of the

ASPSP app and clearly mention the amount and the payee.


7 ASPSPs must apply SCA which should have no more than the number of



• Trustee P3/P4

letter Actions P3

A2 and P3 A6

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2 (d)

1 ASPSP Required

9 The PISP must confirm successful confirmation of payment initiation. • PSR.Reg 44(1) 26 PISP Required

CX Considerations

3 If the PISP and the ASPSP support Model B then the PISP should provide the

PSU information on how the identifier can be generated with their ASPSP

and make the PSU aware about how this identifier will be used.

5 The PSU should be able to easily provide the identifier to the PISP application

(e.g. scan the code into the Kiosk in this instance).

8 The ASPSP must make the PSU aware that they have been logged off from

the ASPSP app and notify them to check back on the originating PISP app.

To demonstrate a Model B based decoupled journey we have used one variation of PIS journey (Sec 4.1.1)

as an example, where the ASPSP receives all the details of the payment order from the PISP.

This flow applies to other variations of PIS journeys covered in detail under Section 4, AISP journeys

covered under Section 3 and CBPII journeys covered under Section 5.



2.3.3 Model C: TPP generated identifier PSU provides a TPP (AISP/PISP/CBPII) generated unique identifier to the ASPSP to identify the request from the TPP








A decoupled authentication flow where the PSU provides a dynamic identifier generated with their ASPSP to the TPP (AISP/PISP/CBPII), which is

then used by the ASPSP to identify the PSU through the ASPSP app to authenticate and action the TPP request.

This model is best suited to a TPP app that can "capture" the code from the ASPSP app (e.g. by scanning a QR code). Alternatively, the PSU can be

prompted to type in an identifier in the TPP App. This may be a long series of characters and may result in a sub-optimal customer experience.




1

2

3

4 5

8

6 7

We have illustrated an example where the dynamic identifier is a QR code and scannable by the ASPSP app.

The code generated is however not limited to QR code and the options supported are chosen by the ASPSP.

The general guidance is that the use of the code within the ASPSP app should not introduce friction in the journey.






Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1 For this step, please refer Section 4.1.1, step 1 & step 2.

5 After the PSU scans the identifier from the PISP within the ASPSP app then the

ASPSP must display the payment request and clearly mention the amount and

the payee and payment account.


6

The ASPSP performs a SCA.

The ASPSP app based authentication must have no more than the number of


mobile app(biometric, passcode, credentials).

• Trustee P3/P4

letter Actions P3

A2 and P3 A6

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2 (d)

1 ASPSP Required

8 The PISP must confirm successful confirmation of payment initiation. • PSR.Reg 44(1) 26 PISP Required

CX Considerations

2 The PISP must present the PSU the authentication options supported by the

ASPSP which in turn can be supported by the PISP device/channel (e.g. A

PISP kiosk that can only support authentication by ASPSP mobile app).

3

If the PISP and the ASPSP supports Model C then the PISP must display an

identifier generated from the ASPSP to the PSU (e.g. QR code) and information

on how the identifier should be used within the ASPSP app (e.g scan QR code

with the ASPSP app).

4 The PSU should be able to easily use the identifier presented by the PISP

application (e.g. scan the code from the Kiosk in this instance) without much

friction (e.g of manually entering an alphanumeric code).



To demonstrate Model C based decoupled we have used one variation of PIS journey (Sec 4.1.1) as an example, where the ASPSP receives all the details of the payment order via the code generated by the PISP.

This flow applies to other variations of PIS journeys covered in detail under Section 4, AISP journeys covered under Section 3 and CBPII journeys covered under Section 5.



Device 1

Device 2

Voice Command Checkout Using Stored Details

AuthenticationPush

Notification

IoT DEVICE ASPSP APP IoT DEVICE

Confirm Transaction

Payment Confirmation & Original Device Referral

2.3.4 Model D: PSU with a TPP account TPP (AISP/PISP/CBPII) passes the PSU's stored unique identifier to the ASPSP to identify the PSU







A decoupled authentication flow where the TPP (AISP/PISP/CBPII) provides the ASPSP a stored PSU identifier, generated by the ASPSP

from a previous PSU transaction. This is used by the ASPSP to notify the PSU such that the PSU can authenticate using the ASPSP app on a

separate device.

This model is ideally suited where the services offered by the TPP involves POS, telephony, or where PSU interaction with the TPP is not

possible through a graphical interface (IoT devices), or even when the PSU may not be present within the TPP channel.




1

2 3

5

4


Note: This example is not

illustrating a voice based

SCA with the ASPSP.





Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

2 The ASPSP must notify the PSU through the ASPSP app for authentication

purposes only without introducing any additional screens. The notification must

clearly mention the payment request with the amount and the payee.

• Trustee P3/P4

letter Actions P3

A2 and P3 A6

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2 (d)

• RTS Art. 5(1)(a)

1

28 ASPSP Required

3 The ASPSP app based authentication must have no more than the number of



• Trustee P3/P4

letter Actions P3

A2 and P3 A6

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2 (d)

1 ASPSP Required

5 The PISP must confirm successful confirmation of payment initiation • PSR.Reg 44(1) 26 PISP Required

CX Considerations

1

PISP IoT device through voice enabled commands asks if they would like to

checkout for the requested payment using their stored ASPSP account.

After the PSU confirms, the PISP uses the stored PSU identity with the ASPSP

to request for payment.



We have used one variation of PIS journey (Sec 4.1.1) as an example, where the ASPSP receives all the details

of the payment order via the TPP device.

The voice commands are an example of how the PSU interacts with the TPP.

This flow applies to other variations of PIS journeys covered in detail under Section 4, AISP journeys covered

under Section 3 and CBPII journeys covered under Section 5.



3.0 Account Information Services (AIS)

One of the primary ambitions of these guidelines is to provide simplification and

consistency throughout each stage of the Open Banking implementation. As such, we

have defined a core set of AIS journeys to illustrate the roles played by each of the

Participants in the Open Banking ecosystem.

Customer Experience Guidelines | Account Information Services


3.1. AIS Core Journeys

The Open Banking Read/Write API specifications support Account Information

Services (AIS). They enable an Account Information Service Provider (AISP) to

access account information from online payment accounts held at Account Service

Payment Service Providers (ASPSPs), in order to provide account information

services to a Payment Service User (PSU), provided they have obtained the PSU’s

explicit consent.

This section describes the core journeys that support the set-up and management of

AIS. The key components are:

• Account Information Consent - PSU giving consent to an AISP to request account

information from their ASPSP

• Refreshing AISP Access - PSU authenticating at their ASPSP to refresh on-going

access they previously given consented to

• Consent Dashboard and Revocation - AISP facility to enable a PSU to view and

revoke consents given to that AISP

• Access Dashboard and Revocation - ASPSP facility to enable a PSU to view

all AISPs that have access to their account(s) and the ability to revoke that

access

• Generic guidance around the effective use of re-direction screens (when the PSU

is transferred to and from the ASPSP domain) is included in section 2.2.5

(Note: This section does not include guidance around scenarios when more

than one TPP is involved in the delivery of a service - sometimes referred to as

"Onward Provisioning". This subject will be addressed as part of the on-going

OBIE evaluations of eIDAS and Consent/Access Dashboards.)




3.1.2 Refreshing AISP Access

3.1.3 Consent Dashboard & Revocation


Featured journeys

Select ASPSP, Review Data Request

& Consent

Select Accounts & Proceed

Data Request Confirmation

AISP ASPSP AISP

Authentication

Optional data access

Standard item TPP




In this journey the AISP presents to the PSU a description of the data that it requires in order to support its service proposition.

PSU selects the ASPSP(s) where their payment account(s) is held. The PSU is then directed to the domain of its ASPSP for

authentication and to select the account(s) they want to give access to. Once the PSU has been authenticated, their ASPSP will able

to respond to the AISP's request by providing the account information that has been requested.









Select ASPSP, Review Data Request

& Consent

Select Accounts & Proceed

Data Request Confirmation

AISP ASPSP AISP

Authentication


Standard item TPP

TPP AISP

List of banks (ASPSPs)

Which bank would you like to connect to?

In order for us to offer this service, we need

your approval to access the following

information from the accounts you hold at your

bank or building society:

We will access your information from your

account(s) until: Monday 20th March 2020

Your Account Details

Your Account Beneficiaries Details

Your Products

Your Transaction Credits

Your Balances

Your Direct Debits

Your Standing Order Details

Your Transaction Debits

Data you will be sharing

TPP AISP

AuthenticateConsent Complete

ConfirmCancel

Thank you

We have received the following information

from your selected account(s) at ASPSP:




Your Products


Your Balances

Your Direct Debits



Data you have shared



Continue

TPP AISP

Select and confirm account(s) to share

information with TPP AISP

Review the data you will be sharing

TPP AISP will access your information from your


Current Account

48-59-60 72346879

Savings Account

10-159-60 789012345

Credit Card Account

3456 8126 2193 8271

ProceedCancel

YOUR ASPSP

1

2

3

4

5

6





CX Considerations

1

AISP should ask PSU to identify their ASPSP before requesting consent so

that the consent request can be constructed in line with the ASPSP's data

capabilities (which the ASPSP must make available to all TPPs). ASPSP

Implementation guides, which are located on the Open Banking Developer

Zone will have information about the ASPSP's data capabilities.


Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

2

The AISP must provide the PSU sufficient information to enable the PSU to

make an informed decision, for example, detail the purpose for which the data

will be used (including whether any other parties will have access to the

information), the period over which it has been requested and when the

consent for the account information will expire (consent could be on-going or

one-off).

• PSR Regs.

68(3)(a), 69(2)

and 70(3)(a)

• FCA Approach

Document

paragraphs 17.46

and 17.47

8

12

TPP

AISP Required

3

The AISP must provide the PSU with a description of the data being requested

using the structure and language recommended by OBIE following customer

research (see Data Cluster Structure & Language below).

The AISP must present the data at a Data Cluster level and allow the PSU to

expand the level of detail to show each Data Permission.

Once PSU has consented, the PSU will be directed to their ASPSP. Please

refer section 2.2.5 for relevant messaging.

n/a 13b AISP Required

4

If the ASPSP provides an option for the PSU to view the data they have

consented to share with the AISP as supplementary information, this must be

done using the structure and language recommended by OBIE following

customer research (see Data Cluster Structure & Language below) . Display of

such information must not be provided to the PSU as a default.

CMA Order 10.2 13a ASPSP Required

5

The ASPSP must not seek confirmation of the consent that has already been

provided by the PSU to the AISP.

Once the PSU has selected the account(s), refer to section 2.1.5 for redirection

messaging.

• EBA Opinion

paragraph 13

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2(c)

• RTS Art. 32(3)

• FCA Approach

Document

paragraph 17.48

2 ASPSP Required


request to the PSU. n/a 18 AISP Recommended



CustomerAlert

Authentication Account Update Confirmation

AISP ASPSP AISP

Refresh Data Access Requirements &

Confirm


Standard item TPP

3.1.2. Refreshing AISP access



The PSRs require strong customer authentication to be performed each time the PSU accesses its online payment account

either directly or using the services of an AISP. The frequency of authentication can be reduced if an ASPSP applies the

exemption relevant to account information access (RTS, Article 10), however this will still require the PSU to be authenticated

at least every 90 days. This section describes the customer journey when a PSU needs to refresh AISP access, so the AISP

can continue to provide the service previously consented to by authenticating again at their ASPSP. All other elements of the

consent (data permissions required, purpose for which the data will be used, transaction history period and consent expiration

date) remain unchanged.

(It should be noted that the API specification allows the AISP to inform the ASPSP that the request is a refresh rather than a

new request).

Requirements and Considerations Additional Information








CustomerAlert

Authentication Account Update Confirmation

AISP ASPSP AISP

Refresh Data Access Requirements &

Confirm


Standard item TPP

Please re-authenticate with your account

provider for us to continue accessing the

information you previously consented to.

Access to

ASPSP 1

CURRENT ACCOUNT

requires renewal

Data access unavailable

Continue

Dismiss

TPP AISP

Thank youWe have received confirmed access to:

ASPSP 1 - Current account

Continue

TPP AISP

Refresh data access

Allow access to

ASPSP 1- CURRENT ACCOUNT

ConfirmCancel



Your Products


Your Balances

Your Direct Debits



Data you will be sharing



TPP AISP

1

2

3

4

User Journey Wireframes Requirements and Considerations Additional Information


6 5



CX Considerations

2

The AISP should make it clear that the PSU is being asked to authenticate to

extend the AISP access to their account data and that no other element of the

consent (e.g. the data permissions required, the purpose for which it will be

used etc.) will change

5

As part of the authentication journey the ASPSP could have a call to action , for

example, to an expandable section that the PSU can click on for information

purposes only.

If the ASPSP provides this option for the PSU as supplementary information, it

will enable the PSU to view the data they have chosen to share with the AISP.

This should be done using the structure and language recommended by OBIE

following customer research (see Data Cluster Structure & Language below).


Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1 AISP should alert the PSU when authentication needs to be performed to

refresh AISP access.

• P2 and P15 of

Agreed

Arrangements 16 AISP Recommended

3

The AISP must present a high level summary of the data that is being

requested and make it clear that this data and the purpose for which it will be

used are the same as when originally requested. This should be done using the

structure and language recommended by OBIE following customer research

(see Data Cluster Structure & Language below).


4

The ASPSP must not replay the data requested (as a default) or seek

re-confirmation of consent.

• EBA Opinion

paragraph 13

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2(c)

and paragraph

34(c)

• RTS Art. 32(3)

• FCA Approach

Document

paragraph 17.48

2 ASPSP Required


request to the PSU. n/a 18 AISP Recommended





90 day access period

With the PSU’s consent, the AISP can access account data covering any period of time going

back, provided that the information is available to the PSU online and the AISP does not request

more data then they need to support their service proposition. SCA must be performed prior to the

AISP's first access, and subsequently re-performed at least every 90 days (where the ASPSP is

applying the Art. 10 exemption), or otherwise where required by the ASPSP.

For example, let's say the PSU (on 14 January 2018) consents to AISP1 accessing the last three

years' of account information (i.e. from 15 January 2015 -14 January 2018) from ASPSP2 with the

consent validity lasting until 31 December 2018. ASPSP2 offers AISP1 three years of account

information in the first access request after SCA has been performed. If ASPSP2 is applying the

Art. 10 exemption, AISP1 can then continue to access either or both of the account balance

and/or the last 90 days’ payment transactions without SCA having to be performed again until 14

April 2018. However, SCA will have to be performed:

• At any time AISP1 requests more than either or both of the account balance and/or 90 days of

payment transactions;

• AISP1 requests account information after 14 April 2018; or

• At any time the PSU carries out any action through a remote channel which may imply a risk

of payment fraud or other abuses.

The application of SCA by the ASPSP is the only step required by the ASPSP in these scenarios

and the PSU must not be required to go through the same account(s) selection process to confirm

the access.

In this example, the PSU will need to provide a new consent for the AISP to access the account

information after 31 December 2018.

Amending Consent

In situations where a PSU wants to amend the access they have given to an AISP (e.g. they want

to allow the AISP access to additional data elements), the AISP will have to take the PSU through

a new consent process (as in section 3.1.1) as the API specifications do not support the ability to

edit specific elements of a consent. It is in the domain of the AISP to clearly explain this process

to the PSU and develop customer journeys for each scenario where this might apply.

Accounts associated with AISP long lived consent

From a technical perspective, the consent given by the PSU with respect to account information is

bound to the data clusters requested by the AISP and the period over which access has been

requested (including any expiry date).

The actual selection of the designated payment account(s) then happens in the ASPSP space.

The designated payment account(s) could subsequently change for the following reasons:

• The ASPSP offers a dashboard functionality which allows a PSU to manage the designated

payment accounts to which an AISP has access.

• A designated payment account is no longer available as it has been closed or temporarily

suspended etc.

In these circumstances, the consent given to the AISP is still valid (provided it is “long-lived”), and

the AISP should check the most updated list of designated payment accounts during subsequent

requests for data access.



3.1.3. Consent Dashboard & Revocation



AISPs must provide PSUs with a facility to view and revoke on-going consents that they have given to that AISP. They may

have consented to share data from several ASPSPs with a single AISP. This section describes how these consents should be

displayed and how the customer journey to revoke them should be constructed.







Consent Selection Confirm revocation

Consent Update Confirmation

AISP

Select Consent to revoke

Your connected accounts

Select the account you want to manage:

ASPSP 1

Current Account

010203 12345679

Manage

Manage

Savings Account

010203 92345678

ASPSP 2

Business Account

090443 12345678

TPP AISP

Are you sure you want to cancel

our access to:

Cancel data access

Yes

No

ASPSP 1

CURRENT ACCOUNT

SAVINGS ACCOUNT

TPP AISP

Cancel AccessBack

Active: Expires Tuesday 18th June 2020

ASPSP 1 - CURRENT ACCOUNT

SAVINGS ACCOUNT



Your Products


Your Balances

Your Direct Debits



We have access to the following

information from these accounts.

TPP AISP

Thank you

Your connected accounts

Select the account you want to manage.

TPP AISP

Manage

Thank you

We have cancelled access to:

ASPSP 1 - CURRENT ACCOUNT

SAVINGS ACCOUNT

ASPSP 2

Business Account

090443 12345678



1 2

3


In addition, consumer research has shown that respondents

prefer confirmation of a revocation in writing via email in addition

to text on the website.

> See more






Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1

The AISP must describe the data being shared through each consent using the

structure and language recommended by OBIE following customer research

(see Data Cluster Structure & Language below).

The AISP should present the data at a Data Cluster level and allow the PSU to

expand the level of detail to show each Data Permission

The Consent Dashboard should also describe:

• The purpose of the data request (including whether any other parties will

have access to the information)

• The period for which the transaction data has been requested

• When the TPP's access to the data will expire

• The date the consent was granted


3

The AISP must inform the ASPSP that the PSU has withdrawn consent by

making a call to DELETE the account-access-consent resource (as described

in Release 3 of the API specifications). This will ensure that no further account

information is shared.

The ASPSP must support the Delete process as described in the Release 3

API specifications. (This is not visible to the PSU but will ensure no further

account information is provided by the ASPSP to the AISP).

P2 and P15

of Agreed

Arrangements 9 TPP Required

CX Considerations

2 The AISP should make the exact consequences of cancelling the consent clear to

the PSU - i.e. they will no longer be able to provide the specific service to the PSU



Select Service Provider to Manage

Full Account Detail - Deactivate

Service Provider Update

Confirmation

ASPSP

Your Service Provider Details




ASPSPs must provide PSUs with a facility to view and revoke on-going access that they have given to any AISP for

each account held at that ASPSP. This section describes how AISP access should be displayed and how the

customer journey to revoke them should be constructed.









1

2


Consumer research has shown that people feel most confident

that a revocation has been actioned, when it is has taken place

with an ASPSP. Their perception is that they are 'stopping' the

information at 'source' rather than instructing a TPP not to 'take'

the information.

> See more






Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1

The ASPSP must describe the data being accessed using the structure and

language recommended by OBIE following customer research (see Data

Cluster Structure & Language below).

The ASPSP should present the data at a Data Cluster level and allow the PSU

to expand the level of detail to show each Data Permission

The Access Dashboard should also describe:

• The status of the authorisation e.g. Active/Inactive

• When the AISP's access to the account(s) will expire

• The date the authorisation was granted

The access dashboard must allow a PSU to view or cancel the access they

have given consent to. These 2 functions should be given equal prominence

when offered to the PSU.

CMA Order 10.2 13a

10 ASPSP Required

CX Considerations

2

The ASPSP should advise the PSU that they should contact the associated AISP

to inform them of the cancellation of access and/or understand the consequences

of doing so





3.2.1 Permissions

In the Open Banking API design, data elements are logically grouped together into

"permissions". It is at this level that AISPs request data access. If they request access to

a specific permission they will have access to all the data elements in the permission.

This provides a pragmatic approach, allowing AISPs to be selective but at the same time

creating a consent process that is at an acceptable level of granularity for the PSU.

Details of the data elements within each permission are included in the API technical

specifications.

3.2.2 Data Clusters

OBIE customer research found that grouping permissions together and adding another

layer of description aided the PSU's understanding of the data they were being asked to

consent to share. This approach also allows a consistency of language across ASIPs

and ASPSPs to provide additional comfort to the PSU that they are sharing the data they

intended to. If consistent language is used across all Participants this will drive PSU

familiarity and adoption. These groups of permissions are known as Data Clusters. Data

Clusters are not reflected in the API specifications, they are purely a presentational layer

on top of permissions to aid PSU understanding.

It should be noted that the P15 Evaluation (Efficacy of Consent Dashboards) currently

underway will consider the structure of data clusters and the language used to support

them. These guidelines will be amended in line with the output of that evaluation

exercise.




3.2.3 Data Cluster Structure & Language

The following table describes how permissions should be grouped into Data Clusters and the language that must be used to describe the data at each of these levels (Checklist item

13a and 13b). Both AISPs and ASPSPs must describe the data being shared at a Data Cluster level and allow the PSU to "drill-down" to see the detail at Permission level using the

permission language set-out in the table below.

Where both Basic and Detail permissions are available from the same API end point, the Detail permission contains all data elements of the Basic permission plus the additional

elements described in the table

.

Data Cluster Language API End Points Permissions Permissions Language Information available


Accounts

Accounts Basic Any other name by which you refer to this account Currency of the account, Nickname of account (E.g. ‘Jakes

Household account’)

Accounts Detail Your account name, number and sort-code

Account Name, Sort Code, Account Number, IBAN, Roll

Number (used for Building Society) (plus all data provided in

Accounts Basic)

Balances Balances Your account balance Amount, Currency, Credit/Debit, Type of Balance, Date/Time,

Credit Line

All where PAN is available PAN Your card number PAN masked or unmasked depending on how ASPSP

displays online currently

Your Regular Payments

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries Basic Payee agreements you have set up List of Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries Detail Details of Payee agreements you have set up Details of Beneficiaries account information (Name, Sort

Code, Account) (plus all data provided in Beneficiaries Basic)

Standing Orders

Standing Order Basic Your Standing Orders SO Info, Frequency, Creditor Reference Info, First/Next/Final

Payment info

Standing Order Detail Details of your Standing Orders Details of Creditor Account Information (Name, Sort Code,

Account) (plus all data provided in Standing Order Basic)

Direct Debits Direct Debits Your Direct Debits Mandate info, Status, Name, Previous payment information

Scheduled Payments

Scheduled Payments Basic Recurring and future dated payments Scheduled dates, amount, reference. Does not include

information about the beneficiary

Scheduled Payments Detail Details of recurring and future dated payments Scheduled dates, amount, reference. Includes information

about the beneficiary

Your Account Transactions Transactions Transactions Basic Credits Your incoming transactions Transaction Information on payments made into the

customer’s account (Reference, Amount, Status, Booking

Data Info, Value Date info, Transaction Code). Does not

include information about the entity that made the payment

Transactions Basic Debits Your outgoing transactions Same as above, but for debits

Transactions Detail Credits Details of your incoming transactions Transaction Information on payments made into the


Data Info, Value Date info, Transaction Code). Includes

information about the entity that made the payment

Transactions Detailed Debits Details of your outgoing transactions Same as above but for debits





Your Statements Statements

Statements Basic Information contained in your statement All statement information excluding specific amounts related

to various balance types, payments due etc.

Statements Detail Details of information contained in your statement All statement information including specific amounts related


Your Account Features and Benefits Products Product Product details - fees, charges, interest,

benefits/rewards

Refers to customer account product details defined in the

Open data API ( the fees, charges, interest,

benefits/rewards). Applicable to PCA and BCA.

Offers Offers Offers available on your account Balance transfer, promotional rates, limit increases, start &

end dates

Your contact details Party Party Your address, telephone numbers and email

address as held by your bank/card issuer

Address, telephone numbers and email address as held by

your bank/card issuer, party type (sole/joint etc.)

3.2.4 Optional Data

If an AISP requests additional information (e.g. Party) and the ASPSP chooses to

provide this information to the AISP, both parties must ensure that they consider GDPR

in the processing of this request i.e. both parties must ensure that they have a legal

basis for processing.


If an AISP is asking for data access solely to a card account

they should adjust the language they use to describe the

ASPSP (e.g. “card provider” rather than “bank”) and use card

specific data clusters and permissions

> See more


4.0 Payment Initiation Services (PIS)

One of the primary ambitions of the Customer Experience Guidelines is to provide

simplification and consistency throughout each stage of the Open Banking

implementation. As such, we have defined and illustrated a core set of payment

initiation journeys.

Customer Experience Guidelines


4.1 PIS Core Journeys

Open Banking API specifications support Payment Initiation Services (PIS) that enable a PISP to initiate a payment order, with the PSU's explicit consent, from their online payment account held at their ASPSP. The PISP is then further able to retrieve the status of a payment order. This section describes how each of the Participants (PISPs and ASPSPs) in the delivery of these services can optimise the customer experience for these services. Furthermore, it provides some clarifications to these Participants on the usage of the APIs which are not covered by the technical specifications, and some best practice guidelines for implementation of the customer journeys.

Please note that ASPSPs do not need to support the initiation of certain payment methods described in this section by a PISP, where the ASPSP does not support such transactions through any of their own online channels (such as future dated foreign transactions and bulk payment files).

If the customer is able to initiate, for example, international payments, recurring transactions or a batch file of payments online, they should also be able to do so via a PISP, irrespective of the channel the customer has used to access the PISP1.

1 FCA consultation on updated Approach to RTS and EBA guidelines under revised PSD2 and CEG Checklist Reference ref 21

Customer Experience Guidelines | Payment Initiation Services


Featured journeys



(Supplementary info)







4.1.8. Multi-authorisation Payments


Screen


Screen


Confirmation

PISP ASPSP PISP


Payment







PSUs can initiate, by providing their consent to PISPs, an instruction to their ASPSPs to make a one-off payment for a specific amount to a specific

payee.

Where all information for a complete payment order (including the PSUs’ account details) is passed from PISPs to ASPSPs, once PSUs have been

authenticated, PSUs must be directed back to the PISP domain without any further steps taking place in the ASPSP domain.

This excludes the cases where supplementary information is required to be provided to PSUs as described in Section 4.1.2).




Screen


Screen


Confirmation

PISP ASPSP PISP


Payment



Payee name:

Sort code:

Account no.:

Payment ref.:

Bank name:

Sort code:

Account number:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

MERCHANT LTD

Your ASPSP

48-59-60

12346879

Payee information

Payment information



ConfirmBack

PISP

Payment total

Total

£31.94

£1000.00Select payment method

PayPal

Pay by bank account

Add your bank details

Select your bank

Sort code

Account number

Credit/Debit Card

Paying with your bank account is completely

safe and secure with Open Banking.

ContinueBack

Select your account

Name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Payment reference:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

Merchant Ltd

PISP

Payment total

Total

£31.94

£1000.00

Transaction ID:

Total paid:

0-9328-472398

£31.94


Thank you

Bank name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Order reference:

Your ASPSP

48-59-60

12346879

MERCHANT LTD

Payment details

Continue



PISP

Fingerprint ID for “ASPSP”

Press the Home Button to Access

Cancel

YOUR ASPSP


Amount:

To:

£31.94

MERCHANT



Sortcode: 48-59-60



Transfering you to

your ASPSP



over to your ASPSP



Sortcode: 48-59-60






Payment details


£31.94 to MERCHANT







Research amongst consumers has shown that 64% of

participants prefer to be shown confirmation that the payment

has been received at the TPP. This would provide reassurance

that the process has worked.

> See more

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

12

11

10

7

9



6

6


of the following screens without introducing additional confirmation screens (unless


6




Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1

Minimum Set of Parameters

PISPs must either allow PSUs to specify the below minimum set of parameters or pre-populate them for the PSUs:

• Payment Amount and Currency (GBP for UK implementations)

• Payee Account Name

• Payee Account Identification details (e.g. account number and sort code or additionally roll number or full IBAN)

• Payment Reference - This is optional but it is good practice to be populated for a payment

• RTS Art. 36(4) 22 PISP Required

2




• select their Account Identification details (this assumes they have been saved previously)

• select their ASPSP in order to select their PSU payment Account from there later on in the journey


3

PSU Consent to PISP

PISPs must request for the PSUs' consent to the payment in a clear and specific manner. PISPs must display the following information in the consent screen:



• Payment Reference, if it has been entered by PSUs or prepopulated by PISPs in item #1

• PSU payment Account Identification and/or the selected ASPSP (based on item #2 options)

• Note 1: if PSU payment Account identification is selected in item #2, PISPs should mask the PSU payment Account details on the consent screen. Otherwise, if the PSU

payment Account identification has been input by PSUs in item #2, PISPs should not mask these details to allow PSUs to check and verify correctness

• Note 2: if PSU payment Account identification is provided by PSUs in item #2, PISPs could use this to identify and display the ASPSP without having to ask PSUs.

For Payee Account Identification details (e.g. account number and sort code or additionally roll number or full IBAN):

• if this has been provided by PSUs in item #1, then PISPs must also display this in the consent screen to allow PSUs to check and verify correctness

• if this has been pre-populated by PISPs (e.g. in a eCommerce payment scenario) PISPs could choose whether to display this information or not

• PSR Regs. 68(3)(a), 69(2)

and 70(3)(a)

• FCA Approach Document

paragraphs 17.46 and

17.47

8 TPP Required

6

ASPSPs must display as minimum the Payment Amount, Currency and the Payee Account Name to make the PSU aware of these details (unless an SCA exemption is

being applied). These details must be displayed as part of the authentication journey on at least one of the following screens without introducing additional confirmation

screens (unless supplementary information is required, refer to section 4.1.2)

1. PISP to ASPSP redirection screen. 2. ASPSPs’ Authentication screen. 3. ASPSP to PISP redirection screen


8 SCA Authentication (including dynamic linking) must be the only action required at the ASPSPs (unless supplementary information required, refer to section 4.1.2).

The ASPSP authentication must have no more than the number of steps that the PSU would experience when directly accessing the ASPSP channel.

• Trustee P3/P4 letter Action

P3 A2 and P3 A6


19

1

ASPSP Required

10

PISP Confirmation

PISPs must display the information received from the ASPSP. This information may include:

• The unique identifier assigned to the payment instruction by ASPSPs

• The payment status (and status update date & time) - Confirmation of successful payment initiation

If received by ASPSPs, PISPs must display any of the following information regarding initiation and execution of the payment:

• The expected payment execution date & time

• The expected settlement date & time (i.e. the value date of the payment)

• The ASPSP charges (where applicable)

• PSR Reg. 69(2)(b)

• RTS Art. 36(1)(b)


paragraph 17.26

• PSR 44(1)(a)

25

26

ASPSP

PISP

Required

Required

12 Further Payment Status Update

PISPs should follow up with ASPSPs in order to check and update the PSUs with the most updated information that can be received by ASPSPs in relation to the execution

of the payment.

• n/a 27 PISP Recommended





CX Considerations

4

PISPs should provide messaging to inform PSUs that they will be taken to their ASPSPs to complete

the payment.

Example wording: "You will be securely transferred to YOUR ASPSP to authenticate and make the

payment"

5 Generic PISP to ASPSP redirection screen and message. Please refer to Section 2.2.5

7

• ASPSPs should inform PSUs about their “point of no return” for making the payment and that

their payment will be made after authentication occurs. Example wording: "Authenticate to make

payment”

• For recognition based biometrics (e.g. Face ID) which can be more immediate the biometric

authentication should be invoked after a delay or through a call to action to allow the PSU the

ability to view the details.

• ASPSPs could display the balance of PSUs payment account (not shown on user journey) as

part of the authentication journey on any of the following screens:

1. ASPSPs’ Authentication screen


Displaying the balance in this instance need not require any additional strong customer

authentication. (an ASPSP for instance could use device identification as form of a soft

authentication to identify the PSU and display the balance )

9 Generic ASPSP to PISP redirection Screen and message. Please refer to Section 2.2.5

11 If PSUs provide their payment account identification details (as per item #2

options), PISPs could save the account details for future transactions, where this is part of the

payment initiation service explicitly requested by the PSU.

Note: This core journey will result in a single domestic payment which will be

processed by the ASPSPs as a Single Immediate Payment (SIP) via Faster

Payments. Single domestic payments through other payment schemes can be

initiated as described in section 4.1.2.1.



ASPSP PISPPISP

Supplementary Information &

Proceed

Payment Confirmation

Enter ASPSP Information

Payment Information Summary & Confirm

Authentication

4.1.2 Single Domestic Payments - a/c selection @ PISP (Supplementary info)







In some scenarios, an additional step in ASPSPs' journeys may be required to display supplementary information to PSUs. ASPSPs should

determine the situations where this supplementary information is required, having regard to the principle that parity should be maintained between

Open Banking journeys and ASPSPs’ online channel journeys, such that if supplementary information is not provided within the ASPSPs' online

channels directly to PSUs, then it must not be provided during an Open Banking PIS journey. ASPSPs should also ensure that this information

does not constitute an obstacle or additional check on the consent provided by the PSU to the TPP.


ASPSP PISPPISP

Supplementary Information &

Proceed




Authentication

Select payment method

PayPal

Pay by bank account


Select your bank

Sort code

Account number

Credit/Debit Card



ContinueBack

Select your Account

Name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Payment reference:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

Merchant Ltd

PISP

Payment total

Total

£31.94

£1000.00

Transaction ID:

Total paid:

0-9328-472398

£31.94



Bank name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Order reference:

Your ASPSP

48-59-60

12346879

MERCHANT LTD

Payment details

Continue

PISP


Thank you



Payee name:

Sort code:

Account no.:

Payment ref.:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

MERCHANT LTD

Payee information

Bank name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Your ASPSP

48-59-60

12346879

Payment information



ConfirmBack

PISP

Payment total

Total

£31.94

£1000.00

Please check the details below are correct.

Payment request

Overdraft alert

This payment will take your following

account in to an unarranged overdraft.

Your Account 48-59-60 72346879

To avoid overdraft interest please repay

the unarranged overdraft by 23:45 today

ProceedCancel

Payee name:

Sort code:

Account no.:

Payment ref.:

Amount

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

MERCHANT LTD

£31.94

YOUR ASPSP

Press Proceed to make payment



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

13

14

12

11

9

10





CX Considerations

4 As per 4.1.1, item #4

5 As per 4.1.1, item #5

8

ASPSPs should display to PSUs all the payment instruction

information received from PISPs together with the supplementary

information. This information may include the following:



• Payment Reference, if it has been entered by PSUs or prepopulated by

PISPs in item #1

• PSU payment Account Identification and/or the selected ASPSP (based

on item #2 options).

• Payee Account Identification details (e.g. account number and sort code or

additionally roll number or full IBAN)

ASPSPs could display the balance of PSUs payment account (see Section

4.1.3 for clarification on SCA requirements)

9 ASPSPs should inform PSUs about their “point of no return” for making the

payment and that their payment will be made after pressing the Proceed button.

Example wording: “Press Proceed to make payment"

11 As per 4.1.1, item #9

13 As per 4.1.1, item #11


Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1 Minimum Set of Parameters: As per 4.1.1, item #1 • RTS Art. 36(4) 22 PISP Required

2 PSU payment Account Selection: As per 4.1.1, item #2 • n/a 24 PISP Required

3 PSU Consent to PISP : As per 4.1.1, item #3

• PSR Regs.

68(3)(a), 69(2) and

70(3)(a)

• FCA Approach

Document

paragraphs 17.46

and 17.47

8 TPP Required

6

ASPSPs must apply SCA including dynamic linking, unless an exemption

applies.

The ASPSP authentication must have no more than the number of steps that

the PSU would experience when directly accessing the ASPSP channel.

• RTS Art. 33(2)

• Trustee P3/P4


and P3 A6

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2 (d)

19

1

ASPSP Required

7

Supplementary Information

ASPSPs must be able to introduce a step as part of the authentication

journey to display supplementary information associated with that payment if

required.

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2(d) 20 ASPSP Required

10

ASPSPs must allow PSUs to review as a part of the authentication

process any supplementary Information.

The PSU can either proceed with the payment or cancel it on the same

screen with items #7 & #8,using options with "equal prominence“.

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2(d) 20 ASPSP Required

12 PISP Confirmation: As per 4.1.1, item #10

• PSR Reg. 69(2)(b)

• RTS Art. 36(1)(b)

• FCA Approach

Document

paragraph 17.23-

17.24

• PSR 44(1)(a)

25

26

ASPSP

PISP

Required

Required

14 Further Payment Status Update: As per 4.1.1, item #12 • n/a 27 PISP Recommended





List of Supplementary Information:

ASPSPs must determine the situations where Supplementary Information is required to be shown

to the PSU, having regard to the principle that parity should be maintained between Open

Banking journeys and ASPSP direct online channel journeys. Supplementary Information may be

required:

• Where fees, charges or Forex apply(e.g single CHAPS international payments)

• Where interest rates apply

• To facilitate confirmation of payee (for UK implementations, where ASPSPs applied COP

validation and found inconsistency between payee account name and payee account details)

• To display a PSU warning that the relevant payment account will become overdrawn / exceed an

overdraft limit as a result of the intended payment

• If the relevant payment submission cut-off time has elapsed and the ASPSP wishes to offer an

execution date/time

• Where the PSU has been identified by the ASPSPs as a vulnerable customer (who therefore

receives tailored journeys and messages in ASPSP’s own online platforms)

• To show value-add information based on functionality implemented by ASPSPs in competitive

space which provides positive customer outcome (e.g. cashflow prediction engine)

• For high value transactions using a different payment scheme

• Where the payments may be duplicated by the customer in a short period (e.g. ASPSP may

display a warning that payment appears to be duplicated).


Journey 4.1.2 can be used to initiate single domestic payment through Bacs or CHAPS,

with the chosen payment scheme to be captured and included in the payment order.

Thus:

• Minimum Set of Parameters: PISPs must either allow PSUs to specify the Payment

Scheme as part of the information they provide to the PISP or pre-populate this

information for the PSUs (in use cases where applicable).

• The payment scheme (Bacs, CHAPS, or Faster Payments) will then be included in the

PSUs' consent screen and will be forwarded to the ASPSP as part of the payment

order.

• Please note that Faster Payments does not need to be explicitly defined, as it is

considered to be the default payment scheme to use when the optional parameter

is not defined.

Note: Single Bacs or CHAPS payments may require the display of supplementary

information due to cut-off times and potential additional charges.



Select ASPSP Payment Information Summary & Confirm

Authentication Select Account & Proceed


PISP ASPSP PISP







There are cases where the payment order submitted by PISPs to ASPSPs is incomplete, such as where PSU account selection has not yet occurred.

In these scenarios, OBIE considers that SCA only needs to be obtained once, as part of the initial interaction between the ASPSP and PSU. The fact that the PSU has to then carry out account selection or provide other information does not invalidate the SCA just performed by the ASPSP.

Equally, the display of the account balance by the ASPSP as part of the account selection process in the payment initiation journey should not require an additional application of SCA. We understand the FCA is comfortable with this approach, however we note that the application of SCA (and interpretation of relevant requirements) is a matter for individual ASPSPs.



Select ASPSP Payment Information Summary & Confirm

Authentication Select Account & Proceed


PISP ASPSP PISP

List of banks (ASPSPs)

ContinueBack


PayPal

Pay by bank account


Credit/Debit Card



Select your Account

Select your Account

Name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Payment reference:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

Merchant Ltd

PISP

Payment total

Total

£31.94

£1000.00

Transaction ID:

Total paid:

0-9328-472398

£31.94

Bank name:

Order reference:

Your ASPSP

MERCHANT LTD

Payment details

Continue

PISP


Thank you



Bank name: Your ASPSP

Payee name:

Sort code:

Account no.:

Payment ref.:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

MERCHANT LTD

Payee information

Payment information



ConfirmBack

PISP

Payment total

Total

£31.94

£1000.00 Confirm payment account


Please select the account to pay from:

Current Account

48-59-60 72346879

Available: £345.67

Savings Account

10-11-12 789012345

Available: £678.90

Payee name:

Sort code:

Account no.:

Payment ref.:

Amount

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

MERCHANT LTD

£31.94

ProceedCancel


YOUR ASPSP



Example cases where the payment order submitted by PISP is incomplete include:

• PSU payment account has not been selected.

• Any other optional parameters of the OBIE standard required by the ASPSP to make the payment have not been selected/defined at PISP (e.g. payment scheme for bulk/batch, payment priority, charges model for international payments etc.).

1

2

3

4

5

6 8

9

12

13

14

10

11

7



When account selection is done at the ASPSP, research

amongst consumers has shown that 58% of participants prefer

to be shown the balance for their selected payment account,

before reviewing a payment. This was felt to assist in good

personal financial management.

> See more




CX Considerations

4 As per 4.1.1, item #4

5 As per 4.1.1, item #5

7 ASPSPs could also display a message to prompt PSUs to authenticate to

continue with their payment instruction.

8

Once the PSU has selected their account, the ASPSPs should display the

following information to the PSU:




PISPs in item #1

• The account selected by the PSU for payment

• Payee Account Identification details (e.g. account number and sort code or

additionally roll number or full IBAN)



Example wording: “Press Proceed to make payment"

11

ASPSPs must allow PSUs to review as a part of the authentication process the

information described in items #7 & #8. The PSU can either proceed with the

payment or cancel it, on the same screen with items #7 & #8, using options.

with "equal prominence".

12 As per 4.1.1, item #9


Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements



3

PSU Consent to PISP

PISPs must request for the PSUs' consent to the payment initiation in a clear

and specific manner. PISPs must display the following information in the

consent screen:




PISPs in item #1

• Selected ASPSP (based on item #2 options)

For Payee Account Identification details (e.g. account number and sort code

or additionally roll number or full IBAN):

• if this has been provided by PSUs in item #1, then PISPs must also

display this in the consent screen to allow PSUs to check and verify

correctness

• if this has been pre-populated by PISPs (e.g. in a eCommerce payment

scenario) PISPs could choose whether to display this information or not

• PSR Regs.

68(3)(a), 69(2) and

70(3)(a)

• FCA Approach

Document

paragraphs 17.46

and 17.47

8 PISP Required

6

ASPSPs must apply SCA including dynamic linking, unless an exemption

applies.

The ASPSP authentication must have no more than the number of steps that

the PSU would experience when directly accessing the ASPSP channel.

• RTS Art. 33(2)

• Trustee P3/P4


and P3 A6

• EBA Draft

Guideline 5.2 (d)

19

1 ASPSP Required

9 Additional Parameters

ASPSPs must allow PSUs to select the payment account to complete the

payment order for execution.

• CMA Order 10.2 23 ASPSP Required


• PSR Reg. 69(2)(b)

• RTS Art. 36(1)(b)

• FCA Approach

Document

paragraph 17.23-

17.24

• PSR 44(1)(a)

25

26

ASPSP

PISP

Required

Required




Enter ASPSP Account Information

& Payment Type

Payment Information Summary

& Confirm

Supplementary Information/

Payment Order Parameters &

Proceed


PISP ASPSP PISP

Authentication








PSUs can setup, through PISPs, an instruction to their ASPSPs to make a one-off payment for a specific amount to a specific payee on a specific

future date.

The example reference journey illustrates account selection occurring in the PISP domain. However, please note that account selection can take

place at the ASPSP domain. In this scenario, please follow the approach of reference journey 4.1.3.

Note: OBIE Standards do not currently support the amendment or cancellation of Future Dated Payments via PISPs. These payments may be

amended or cancelled via the ASPSP’s direct online channel (where supported). Cancellation of these payments must be consistent with available

capabilities on ASPSP's existing online platform, as well as, in accordance with the provisions of the PSRs relating to revocation of payment orders.



& Payment Type


& Confirm



Proceed


PISP ASPSP PISP

AuthenticationEnter ASPSP Account Information

& Standing Order Details


Future dated payment Set Up

Confirmation

Payment details

Continue

Bank name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Reference:

Amount:

Payment date:

Status:

Your ASPSP

48-59-60

12346879

MERCHANT LTD

£31.94

20.01.2020

Pending

PISP

Your payment has been submitted and

is now set up.

Thank you

Confirm payment details


Payee:

Sort code:

Account number:

Reference:

Amount:

Payment date:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

MERCHANT LTD

£31.94

19.01.2020

ConfirmCancel

YOUR ASPSP

Proceed


Payment date

19.01.20 is a Sunday and future dated

payments can be made during business

days only.

This payment will be made on 20.01.20

Bank name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Payment date:

Your ASPSP

48-59-60

12346879

19.01.2020

Payment information

Check and confirm

Payee name:

Sort code:

Account no.:

Payment ref.:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

MERCHANT LTD

Payee information



ConfirmBack

PISP

Payment total

Total

£31.94

£1000.00Select payment method

PayPal

Pay by bank account


Select your bank

Sort code

Account number

Select payment date

Credit/Debit Card



ContinueBack

Select your Account

Name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Payment reference:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

Merchant Ltd

PISP

Payment total

Total

£31.94

£1000.00




Consumer research has shown that 82% of consumers would

like to see the payment schedule at least once in the journey.

> See more

1

3

2

4

5

6

8

11

12

13

7

10

9






Reference

CEG

Checklist

Reference

Participant Implementation

Requirements



3 Execution Date: PISPs must allow PSUs to select the expected execution date for

the payment by the ASPSPs.

• EBA Guidelines (CP) - 2.3(c )

• PSR Reg. 69(2)(c )


paragraph 17.29 - 17.31

21 PISP Required

4

PSU Consent to PISP

PISPs must request for the PSUs' consent to the payment in a clear and specific

manner. PISPs must display the following information in the consent screen:

• Payment Execution Date



• Payment Reference, if it has been entered by PSUs or pre-populated by PISPs

in item #1

• PSU payment Account Identification and/or the selected ASPSP (based on item

#2 options)

• Note 1: if PSU payment Account identification is selected in item #2,

PISPs should mask the PSU payment Account details on the consent

screen. Otherwise, if the PSU payment Account identification has been

input by PSUs in item #2, PISPs should not mask these details to allow

PSUs to check and verify correctness

• Note 2: if PSU payment Account identification is provided by PSUs in item

#2, PISPs could use this to identify and display the ASPSP without having

to ask PSUs.

For Payee Account Identification details (e.g. account number and sort code or

additionally roll number or full IBAN):

• if this has been provided by PSUs in item #1, then PISPs must also display this

in the consent screen to allow PSUs to check and verify correctness

• if this has been pre-populated by PISPs (e.g. in a eCommerce payment

scenario) PISPs could choose whether to display this information or not

• PSR Regs. 68(3)(a), 69(2)

and 70(3)(a)


paragraphs 17.46 and 17.47

8 PISP Required

7 As per 4.1.1 item #8

• Trustee P3/P4 letter Action

P3 A2 and P3 A6


19

1

ASPSP Required

8 ASPSPs must display the payment details and any supplementary information about

difference in actual execution date

• EBA Draft Guideline 5.2(d)

• RTS Art. 5(1)(a)

20

28 ASPSP Required


• PSR Reg. 69(2)(b)

• RTS Art. 36(1)(b)


paragraph 17.23-17.24

• PSR 44(1)(a)

25

26

ASPSP

PISP

Required

Required


CX Considerations

5 As per 4.1.1, item #4

6 As per 4.1.1, item #5

9 ASPSPs should inform PSUs about their “point of no return” for making

the payment and that their payment will be made after pressing the

Proceed button. Example wording: “Press Proceed to make payment"

10 As per 4.1.1, item #9

12 PISPs must provide message to PSUs to inform that amendment or

cancelling of the payment must be done at their ASPSP.

Note: If the payment account identifier used by PSUs to setup

a future dated payment order, via PISPs, is no longer valid

(e.g. expired/reported lost stolen PAN), ASPSPs should still

allow the execution of the payment, on the scheduled date for

which were setup.




& Payment Type


& Confirm



Proceed


PISP ASPSP PISP

Authentication







PSUs can setup, through PISPs, an instruction to their ASPSPs to make a series of payments of a specific amount to a specific payee on a number of

specified future dates or on a regular basis.

The example reference journey illustrates account selection occurring in the PISP domain. However, please note that account selection can take

place at the ASPSP domain. In this case, please follow the approach of reference journey 4.1.3.

Note: OBIE Standards do not currently support the amendment or cancellation of Domestic Standing Orders via PISPs. These payments may be

amended or cancelled via the ASPSP’s direct online channel (where supported). Cancellation of these payments must be consistent with available

capabilities on ASPSP's existing online platform, as well as, in accordance with the provisions of the PSRs relating to revocation of payment orders.




& Payment Type


& Confirm



Proceed


PISP ASPSP PISP

Authentication

Name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Payment reference:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

Merchant Ltd


Direct Debit

Pay by bank account

Credit/Debit Card




List of saved accounts

Select first payment date

Enter amount to pay

Select frequency

Select last date

Select your Account

ContinueBack

Select your bank

PISP

Check and confirm



ConfirmBack

Bank name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Your ASPSP

48-59-60

12346879

Payment information

Name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Payment reference:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

Merchant Ltd

PISP

First payment due:

Amount:

Frequency:

Last Date:

5a

01/01/2018

£25.00

Monthly

Until Further Notice

5b

This payment is now set up with ASPSP as

follows:

This payment is now set up with ASPSP as

follows:

Payment information

Continue

Payment ID.:

Amount:

Start Date:

End Date:

5a

1234567-89

£25.00 Per Month

01/01/2018


5b

Bank Name:

Sort code:

Account No.:

Order Ref:

5a

YOUR ASPSP

48-59-60

****6879

MERCHANT LTD

5b

Payment set up confirmation

PISP

ProceedCancel

To:

First payment due:

Amount:

Frequency:

Last Date:

MERCHANT

01/01/2018

£25.00

Monthly


YOUR ASPSP

Payment date

Payments in this schedule that fall on

weekends and bank holidays will be made

on the following business day.

From Account: 12346879 | 48-59-60





Research amongst consumers has shown that they consider it

important to be able to schedule a recurring payment to be paid

on the same date every month. There is currently some

frustration with providers who do not take payments on set

dates but rather indicate a window when payment will be taken.

> See more

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

11

12

13

7

10

9






Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1


PISPs must either allow PSUs to specify the below minimum set of parameters or pre-populate them for the PSUs:

• Creditor Account Name

• Creditor Account Identification (e.g. account number and sort code or roll number for UK implementations)

• Reference of the payment (as per best practice)


2

Standing Order Schedule(s)

PISPs must either allow PSUs to select at least one of following options or pre-populate them for the PSUs:

The First payment date, payment Amount and Currency (GBP for UK implementations)

The Recurring payment date, payment Amount and Currency (only if different from the first payment amount and date)

If standing order is not open ended:

• either the Final payment Date (only if different from the Recurring payment date), payment Amount and Currency (GBP for UK implementations)

• or the Number of payments to be made by the standing order

The Frequency of the payments (for available options on standing order frequency, please refer to Appendix section 7.4.1)


• PSR Reg. 69(2)(c )

• FCA Approach Document paragraph

17.29 - 17.31

21 PISP Required


4

PSU Consent to PISP

PISPs must request for the PSUs' consent to the payment in a clear and specific manner. PISPs must display the following information in the consent screen:

• The Standing Order Schedule parameters including first payment, recurring payment, final payment and frequency as selected in item #3


• Payment Reference, if it has been entered by PSUs or prepopulated by PISPs in item #1


• Note 1: if PSU payment Account identification is selected in item #2, PISPs should mask the PSU payment Account details on the consent screen.

Otherwise, if the PSU payment Account identification has been input by PSUs in item #2, PISPs should not mask these details to allow PSUs to check

and verify correctness

• Note 2: if PSU payment Account identification is provided by PSUs in item #2, PISPs could use this to identify and display the ASPSP without having to

ask PSUs.

For Payee Account Identification details (e.g. account number and sort code or additionally roll number or full IBAN):



• PSR Regs. 68(3)(a), 69(2) and

70(3)(a)



8 PISP Required


• Trustee P3/P4 letter Action P3 A2

and P3 A6


19

1

ASPSP Required

8 ASPSPs must display the payment details, schedule any supplementary information about difference in actual execution day for each transaction • EBA Draft Guideline 5.2(d)

• RTS Art. 5(1)(a)

20

28 ASPSP Required


• PSR Reg. 69(2)(b)

• RTS Art. 36(1)(b)


17.23-17.24

• PSR 44(1)(a)

25

26

ASPSP

PISP

Required

Required






CX Considerations

5 As per 4.1.1, item #4

6 As per 4.1.1, item #5

9

ASPSPs should inform PSUs about their “point of no return” for making the payment and that their payment

will be made after pressing the Proceed button. Example wording: “Press Proceed to make payment"

10 As per 4.1.1, item #9

12 PISPs must provide message to PSUs to inform that modification or cancelling of the standing order must be

done at their ASPSP.

Note: If the payment account identifier used by PSUs to setup a Standing Order payment

order via PISPs is no longer valid (e.g. expired/reported lost stolen PAN), ASPSPs should

still allow the execution of the standing order payments on the scheduled dates for which

they were setup.







Authentication Supplementary Information/


Proceed


PISP ASPSP PISP

User Journey Wireframes CEG Checklist Requirements Additional Information





PSUs can initiate, through PISPs, single international payments from their GBP or foreign currency payment accounts. Payments can be made in any

currency and to any country, using a number of routing options in order to meet the priority required, provided that functionality is available to PSUs

when making international payments directly from their online payment account.

The authentication approach used in this journey replicates journey 4.1.2, where there is supplementary information to be displayed. If the payment

order is incomplete then the principles of journey 4.1.3 apply. If all details of the payment order are provided by PISPs and ASPSPs decide not to

display any supplementary information, then the principles of 4.1.1 may also be applied.

CEG Checklist Requirements and CX Considerations






Authentication Supplementary Information/


Proceed


PISP ASPSP PISP


Pay by bank account


Select your bank

Sort code

Account number

Credit/Debit Card



ContinueBack

Select your Account

Name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Payment reference:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

Merchant Ltd

Enter amount to pay

Select payment date

Country:

Priority:

Account name:

IBAN:

Reference:

Belgium

High

Merchant

BE68539007657040

MERCHANT LTD

PISP

Payment total

Total

411.31 EUR

£1000.00

Please note your account provider may apply

charges



Check and confirm

Country:

Priority:

Account name:

IBAN:

Reference:

Belgium

High

Merchant

BE68539007657040

MERCHANT LTD

Bank name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Your ASPSP

48-59-60

12346879

Payment information

ConfirmBack

PISP

Reference:

Amount:

Payment date:

4a

MERCHANT LTD

411.31 Eur

20/01/20

4b



Review payment account:

This rate is valid for the next 5 minutes, if you

navigate away from this page now the rate

we’ve quoted you may change

Please select your charges model

SHARE SENDER RECEIVER

Payee:

Sortcode:

Account No.:

IBAN:

Reference:

Recipient Country:

Currency:

Exchange Rate:

MERCHANT

09-01-29

12347891

BE68539007657040

MERCHANT LTD

Belgium

Euros €

1 GBP=1.1234 EUR

Amount:

Charges:

Amount to pay:

Payment Date:

411.31 EUR - 308.07 GBP

15.00 GBP

323.07 GBP

20/01/18

From:

3a

Current Account

48-59-60 12346879

3b

ProceedCancel


YOUR ASPSP

Transaction ID:

Total paid:

0-9328-472398

£31.94


Thank you

Payment information

Bank Name:

Sort code:

Account No.:

Order Ref:

5a

YOUR ASPSP

48-59-60

****6879

MERCHANT LTD

5b



PISP

Continue


Consumer research has shown that people find a recognisable

ASPSP login page and process reassuring and increases their

confidence in the journey.

> See more

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

14

15

16

17

18

13

User Journey Wireframes CEG Checklist Requirements Additional Information CEG Checklist Requirements and CX Considerations





Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1

Minimum Set of Parameters: PISPs must either allow PSUs to specify the below minimum set of parameters or pre-populate them (e.g. in cases of supplier invoice

payments or eCommerce journeys):

• Payment Amount and Currency

• Destination Country

• Instruction Priority (Normal or Urgent)


• Payee Account Identification details (e.g.. IBAN) 1

• Payment Reference - This is optional filed but it is good practice to be populated for a payment


3 If PISPs want to offer PSUs the ability to make an International Scheduled Payment (Future Dated),then PISPs must allow PSUs to select the execution date for the

payment by the ASPSPs.


• PSR Reg. 69(2)(c )

• FCA Approach Document paragraph 17.29

- 17.31

21 ASPSP Required


5

PSU Consent to PISP: PISPs must request for the PSUs' consent to the payment in a clear and specific manner. PISPs must display the following information in the consent

screen:

• Payment Amount and Currency

• Destination Country

• Instruction Priority (Normal or Urgent)


• Payment Execution Date (same day processing or future date)

• Payment Reference, if it has been entered by PSUs or pre-populated by PISPs in item #1


• Note 1: if PSU payment Account identification is selected in item #2, PISPs should mask the PSU payment Account details on the consent screen. Otherwise, if

the PSU payment Account identification has been input by PSUs in item #2, PISPs should not mask these details to allow PSUs to check and verify correctness

• Note 2: if PSU payment Account identification is provided by PSUs in item #2, PISPs could use this to identify and display the ASPSP without having to ask PSUs

For Payee Account Identification details (e.g. IBAN) 1



• PSR Regs. 68(3)(a), 69(2) and 70(3)(a)

• FCA Approach Document paragraphs 17.46

and 17.47 8 PISP Required


• RTS Art. 33(2)

• Trustee P3/P4 letter Actions P3

A2 and P3 A6


19

1 ASPSP Required

9

Supplementary Information / Additional Payment Order Details

ASPSPs may need to include supplementary information to be displayed to the PSU. Alternatively, if the payment order is not complete, ASPSPs must allow PSUs to provide

these additional payment order details (e.g. PSU payment account).

In these instances, a step after authentication to display the information associated with the payment may required.

This information may include:

• PSU payment Account Identification


• Payment Reference

• Payee Account Identification details (e.g. account number and sort code or additionally roll number or full IBAN)

• Country

• Payment Currency

• Payment Amount

• FX

• Charges model (BEN/SHA/OUR) (for definitions please refer to appendix section 7.4.2.1)

• Payment priority (Normal or Urgent)

• Payment Execution Date (same day processing or future date)

• EBA Draft Guideline 5.2(d) 20 ASPSP Required






Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements


• PSR Reg. 69(2)(b)

• RTS Art. 36(1)(b)


paragraph 17.23-17.24

• PSR 44(1)(a)

25

26

ASPSP

PISP

Required

Required

18 Further Payment Status Update: As per 4.1.1, item #12 n/a 27 PISP Recommended

CX Considerations

2

PISPs could display an indicative FX rate for the payment currency pair if:

• PSUs selected a PSU payment Account or provided PSU payment Account details in item #2

• PSUs provided the currency of the selected PSU payment Account

In that case, PISPs must clearly indicate to PSUs that the FX rate displayed is indicative and may be different to the FX rate to be provided by their ASPSPs

6 As per 4.1.1, step 4


10

ASPSPs must display to the PSU the FX currency conversion rate to be used for the payment order. This FX rate can be:

• Indicative - In this case ASPSPs must clearly inform PSUs that the FX rate is indicative and may be different than the actual rate that will be used for the payment order

• Actual - ASPSPs must clearly inform PSUs for the validity period of this actual FX rate. If the payment order is not submitted within the validity window of the FX, then a new actual FX quote must be displayed. If PSUs confirm the payment but the

payment order submitted by PISPs is not submitted within validity period, ASPSPs could choose to either reject the payment or process it at the agreed FX rate.

ASPSPs could display the payment amount in the PSU payment Account currency (from applying the FX rate)

11

ASPSPs must ensure that charges related to international payments are provided to PSUs as agreed in the framework contract.

Note1: Any provision of charges can only be those of the ASPSP as the Beneficiary's bank charges are not known in many cases.

Note 2: Where the final charges are not known to the ASPSP, the responsibility should remain with the ASPSP for notifying the customer of the charges as per the PSD2 regulatory requirements.

12 Other Options:

• ASPSPs should display the Final Debit Amount (including charges) in PSU payment Account currency

• ASPSPs could display the expected Value Date for the international payment

13 ASPSPs should inform PSUs about their “point of no return” for making the payment and that their payment will be made after pressing the Proceed button. Example wording: “Press Proceed to make payment"

14 ASPSPs must allow PSUs to review the information described in items #9, #10, #11 & #12. The PSU can either proceed with the payment or cancel it, on the same screen using options with "equal prominence".

15 As per 4.1.1, item #9

17 As per 4.1.1, item #11





Examples of international payments covered by OBIE PIS functionality include:

• SEPA Credit Transfer payments

• SEPA Instant Credit Transfer payments (where appropriate)

• Correspondent payments / SWIFT Payments - Single Customer Credit Transfer MT103

(single payment)

• International transfers (PSU's domestic account to PSU's overseas account)

• Currency account transfers (i.e. IATs in currency)

• RTGS on Target2 payments

• EBA Euro1 payments

The FX currency conversion rates applicable to international payments and the charges

incurred by PSUs constitute supplementary information and thus the international payments

journey follows the same approach as the one-off domestic single payment with

supplementary information.

There are a large number of parameters that may need to be specified for an international

payments journey. These depend on a number of factors such as the beneficiary country,

currency, payment scheme, charges model and others. The basic journey shown below is

based on a single SEPA Euro payment in the EEA. Further options are explained in the

options section and in the Appendix section 7.4.3.

Note:

OBIE Standards do not currently support the amendment or cancellation of Future Dated

International Payments via PISPs. PSUs have to go to their ASPSPs' direct online channel in

order to amend or cancel these payments, where supported. In these cases cancellation must

be allowed up to and including the business day prior to execution of the payment order by

the ASPSP.

The cancellation can only happen in cases where the FX conversion of the payment is

executed on settlement date. If the FX payment is executed (i.e. the PSU account debited) in

advance of settlement, then the payment cannot be cancelled.

4.1.6.1 Scheduled International Payments (Future Dated)

Journey 4.1.6 can be used to initiate single future dated international payments. In this

case, the execution date of the payment is captured by PSUs and included in the

payment order. Thus:

• Minimum Set of Parameters: PISPs must either allow PSUs to specify the selected

execution date for the payment by the ASPSPs or pre-populate this information for

the PSUs (in use cases where applicable).

• The execution date will then be included in the PSUs' consent screen and will be

forwarded to ASPSPs as part of the payment order.

• OBIE Standards do not currently support the amendment or cancellation of Future

Dated International Payments via PISPs. PSUs have to go to their ASPSPs' direct

online channel in order to amend or cancel these payments, where supported. In

these cases cancellation must be allowed up to and including the business day prior

to execution of the payment order by the ASPSP.

• The cancellation can only happen in cases where the FX conversion of the payment is

executed on settlement date. If the FX payment is executed (i.e. the PSU account

debited) in advance of settlement, then the payment cannot be cancelled.

In general for this type of payment, both principle of journey 4.1.6 and 4.1.4 apply.

4.1.6.2 International Standing Orders

International Standing Orders can be setup by combining the principles described in

journeys 4.1.6 and 4.1.5. In this case, the Standing Order Schedule for the international

payments is captured by PSUs and included in the international payments order. Please

refer to item #2 of journey 4.1.5.






& Payment Type




Proceed


PISP ASPSP PISP

Authentication





Business PSUs can initiate, through PISPs, bulk/batch payments allowing them to make multiple payments from their payment accounts.


order is incomplete then the principles of journey 4.1.3 apply. This is due to the fact that there are certain cases where one of the parameters required

for the bulk/batch payments may not have been specified or not included in the submitted file, or specific charges may apply.




& Payment Type




Proceed


PISP ASPSP PISP

Authentication

Confirm payment account


Business Account

48-59-60 72346879

Current Account

10-11-12 789012345

ProceedCancel

Press Proceed to submit bulk/batch payments

Reference:

Description:

No. of Payees:

Currency:

Payment Method:

Amount:

Date to send:

8a

0223_ABC

Payroll 200418

25

GBP £

BACS

75,064.71 GBP

20/01/2018

8b

YOUR ASPSP

Make payment

ContinueCancel

Faster Payment - funds will be received

today

BACS Payment - funds will be received

in 2 working days

Please select how you want your bank to

process your bulk payment

Select your bank (ASPSP)

PISP

Reference:

Description:

No. of Payees:

Currency:

Amount:

6a

0223_ABC

Payroll 200418

25

GBP £

75,064.71 GBP

6b

Select date to send

Check and confirm



ConfirmBack

Click here for full transaction details

PISP

Reference:

Description:

No. of Payees:

Currency:

ASPSP:

Payment Method:

Amount:

Date to send:

9a

0223_ABC

Payroll 200418

25

GBP £

YOUR ASPSP

BACS

75,064.71 GBP

20/01/2018

9b

Your Payment order has been

submitted to your ASPSP

Continue

PISP

Reference:

Description:

Payment Method:

No. of Payees:

Amount:

6a

0223_ABC

Payroll 200418

BACS

25

75,064.71 GBP

6b

Payment information

Bank Name:

Order Ref:

3a

YOUR ASPSP

MERCHANT LTD

3b




Research indicates that SMEs value having a summary

information step page as part of the bulk / batch payment

process to act as a check, including a 'cancel' option to minimise

the chance of errors.

> See more

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8

9

11

12

13

14

10






Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1

PISPs should either allow PSUs to specify any of the below information or pre-populate this information on their behalf for the bulk & batch payments:

• Total amount of all payments in the bulk/batch and currency

• Number of payments included in the bulk/batch

• Reference for the file (as per best practice)


• PSR Reg. 69(2)(c )

• FCA Approach Document paragraph 17.29 -

17.31

21 ASPSP Required

2

PSU payment Account Selection: If PISPs allow PSUs to import/upload a batch/bulk file of payments, then the file may contain one PSU payment Account (for

bulk) or multiple PSU payment Accounts (for batch). In this case PISPs should not allow the customer to define a PSU payment Account for the bulk or batch.

PISPs could read the file and pre-populate the PSU payment Account in the case of bulk payments. Moreover, PISPs could use the PSU payment Account sort

code(s) to identify and pre-populate the PSU's ASPSP that the bulk/batch needs to be submitted for processing.

Otherwise, if no external file upload or PSU payment Account(s) in the file, PISPs should allow PSUs to either:

• enter the PSU payment Account details

• select their account details (assumes they have been saved previously)

• select their ASPSP in order to select their PSU payment Account from there

• CMA Order 10.2

• n/a

23

24

ASPSP

PISP

Required

Required

3

Minimum Set of Parameters: If PISPs allows PSUs to import/upload a batch/bulk file of payments, then the file may contain the payment scheme(s) and the

requested execution date(s) for the bulk/batch of payments. In this case, PISPs should not allow the customer to define the payment scheme and the requested

execution date. PISPs could read the file and pre-populate the payment scheme and the requested execution date in the case of bulk payments and also for the

batch payments if the same throughout the file.

Otherwise, if no external file upload or payment scheme and the requested execution date in the file, PISPs should allow PSUs to to specify the below

information:

• Instruction instrument (payment scheme)

• Requested Execution date

Note: For batch payments this will only hold if these parameters will need to apply to all the transactions within the batch.


4

PSU Consent to PISP: PISPs must request for the PSU's consent to the payment clearly displaying any of the following information if specified by PSUs or pre-

populated by PISPs:

• Total amount of all payments in the bulk/batch and currency (subject to item #2 options)

• Number of payments included in the bulk/batch (subject to item #2 options)

• Reference for the file (as per best practice) (subject to item #2 options)

• Instruction instrument (payment scheme) (subject to item #1 options)

• Requested Execution date (subject to item #1 options)

• PSU payment Account or selected ASPSP (subject to item #3 options)

• Note 1: if PSU payment Account is selected in previous screen, PISPs should mask the account details

• Note 2: if PSU payment Account details are provided, PISPs could use the account sort-code to derive and display the ASPSP


• PSR Reg. 69(2)(c )


17.29 - 17.31

21 ASPSP Required

7 • As per 4.1.1 item #8

• RTS Art. 33(2)


and P3 A6


19

1 ASPSP Required

8

Supplementary/ Missing Payment Information:

Although the payee details and total amount are known to the ASPSP before the PSU is authenticated,

• ASPSPs must introduce a step after authentication to allow PSUs to provide additional information associated with the bulk/batch payment in order to

complete the payment instructions, if the payment order is incomplete. This information may include:

• PSU payment Account Identification details (for bulk payments only)

• Instruction instrument (payment scheme) (for bulk payments and for batch only if it applies to all payments in the batch)

• Requested Execution date (for bulk payments and for batch only if it applies to all payments in the batch)

• ASPSPs should be able to introduce a step after authentication to display additional /supplementary information in relation to the bulk \batch payment

instructions such as expected execution date, specific terms related to this payment type, charges etc.

• EBA Draft Guideline 5.2(d) 20 ASPSP Required






Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements


• PSR Reg. 69(2)(b)

• RTS Art. 36(1)(b)


17.26

• PSR 44(1)(a)

25

26

ASPSP

PISP

Required

Required


CX Considerations



9 ASPSPs should also display to PSUs all the payment instruction information received from PISPs.

10 ASPSPs should inform PSUs about their “point of no return” for making the payment and that their payment will be made after pressing the Proceed button. Example wording: “Press Proceed to make payment“.

11 ASPSPs must allow PSUs to review the information described in items #8, #9 & #10. The PSU can either proceed with the payment or cancel it, on the same screen using options with "equal prominence".

12 As per 4.1.1, step 9





OBIE Bulk/Batch payments proposition

For the purposes of this paper the following definitions of bulk and batch payments are used:

• Bulk = A group of payments (e.g. in a file) to be paid to multiple creditor accounts from the

same debtor account, on the same date, with the same currency and through the same

payment scheme

• Batch = A group of payments (e.g. in a file) to be paid to multiple creditor accounts from

multiple debtor accounts. These may involved different payment execution

dates, currencies and payment schemes.

Please also note the following working assumptions:

• For bulk payments, the PSU maybe able to select the PSU payment Account and other

parameters of the bulk payment instruction at the ASPSP, if they are not included in file

submitted by the PISP

• For batch payments, the PSU may not be able to select the PSU payment Account and

other parameters of the bulk payment instruction at the ASPSP, if they are not included in

the file submitted by the PISP.






& Payment Type


TransactionsConfirmation

PISP ASPSP PISP



Proceed

Authentication






PSUs can setup, through PISPs, payments which require multiple parties with delegated user authority to authorise a payment order. This

functionality can be used by the ASPSPs for any payment initiation that requires multiple authorities (including consumers, SMEs and Corporates).


order is incomplete then the principles of journey 4.1.3 apply. The principles of 4.1.1 may also be applied if all details of the payment order are

provided by PISPs, and ASPSPs decide not to display any supplementary information.





& Payment Type


TransactionsConfirmation

PISP ASPSP PISP



Proceed

Authentication

PISP

Name:

Sort code:

Account No.:

Order ref:

Order total:

6a

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

MERCHANT LTD

£1299.00

6b


Pay by bank account


Sort code

Account number

Credit/Debit Card



Select your Account

Select your bank

ContinueBack

PISP

Payment information

Check and confirm

Payee name:

Sort code:

Account no.:

Payment ref.:

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

MERCHANT LTD

Payee information



ConfirmBack

Bank name:

Sort code:

Account number:

4a

Your ASPSP

48-59-60

12346879

4b

Payment total

Total

£1299.00

£1000.00 Payment authorisation:


This payment needs authorisation from the

below list of signatories:

Payee:

Sort code:

Account number:

Reference:

Amount:

6a

MERCHANT

20-40-60

98765432

MERCHANT LTD

£1299.00

6b

David Willis

Justin Clark

Susan Black

4a

(You)

(Pending)

(Pending)

4b

ConfirmCancel

YOUR ASPSP

Press Proceed to authorise payment

PISP

Transaction ID:

Total paid:

0-9328-472398

£1299.00

Thank you

Your payment has been submitted pending

further authorisation

Payment information

Bank Name:

Sort code:

Account No.:

Order Ref:

5a

YOUR ASPSP

48-59-60

****6879

MERCHANT LTD

5b



Continue

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

14

13

15

10

12






Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements



3 PSU Consent to PISP : As per 4.1.1, item #3

• PSR Regs. 68(3)(a), 69(2)

and 70(3)(a)



8 TPP Required

6 • As per 4.1.1 item #8

• RTS Art. 33(2)

• Trustee P3/P4 letter

Actions P3 A2 and

P3 A6

• EBA Draft Guideline

5.2 (d)

19

1 ASPSP Required

13

PISP Confirmation

PISPs must display the information received from the ASPSP. This

information may include:

• whether the payment requires multiple authorisations

• the status of the multiple authorisations

• the number of required authorisations (total required at the start of the

multi authorisation journey)

• number of authorisations complete

• the date and time of last authorisation update

• the date and time the authorisation flow must be completed

• PSR Reg. 69(2)(b)

• RTS Art. 36(1)(b)

• FCA Approach

Document paragraph

17.26

• PSR 44(1)(a)

25

26

ASPSP

PISP

Required

Required


CX Considerations

4 As per 4.1.1, item #4

5 As per 4.1.1, item #5

7

Although some of the payment instruction order details are known to ASPSPs

before PSUs are authenticated, ASPSPs must introduce a step after

authentication to display supplementary information associated with the

payment such as for example to inform the PSU that the PSU payment Account

requires multiple authorisations before the payment can be executed.

8 ASPSP should display to the PSU all the payment instruction information

received from the PISP together with the supplementary information required

for the multi-authorisation payment.

9

ASPSPs should display to PSUs the same information about the multi-auth

payment as displayed for multi-auth payments initiated by the PSU directly via

the ASPSP's online channels. This information could include the number and

name of the authorisers that need to authorise the payment before it can be

processed and executed by the ASPSP.



Example wording: “Press Proceed to make payment“.

11 ASPSP must allow the PSU to proceed with these additional items for the

payment initiation or cancel it, on the same screen with steps 7,8 & 9.

12 As per 4.1.1, step 9.

14 If PSUs provided payment account identification details (as per item #2

options), PISP could save the account details for future transactions ,provided

that this is explicitly agreed by the PSU.



5.0 Card Based Payment Instrument Issuers (CBPIIs)

One of the primary ambitions of these guidelines is to provide simplification and

consistency throughout each stage of the Open Banking implementation.

As such, we have defined a core set of PSU journeys for CBPIIs.

Regulation 68 of the PSRs provides a mechanism whereby payment service providers

(PSPs) issue a card based instrument which is linked to an account or accounts held at

one or more different ASPSPs (provided those accounts are accessible online) and

request a confirmation on the availability of funds. The payment service provider that

issues the payment instrument is known as a Card-Based Payment Instrument Issuer or

CBPII.

When the PSU uses the card-based payment instrument to initiate a payment

transaction, the CBPII is entitled to request a confirmation from the PSUs ASPSP to

which the account is linked, to confirm whether there are sufficient funds available for the

transaction amount. The ASPSP is obliged to respond with an immediate 'yes/no'

answer, provided the relevant regulatory requirements are met.

Customer benefits

There may be several reasons for the customer to use the CBPII card and this will mainly

depend on the actual CBPII proposition. Example benefits may include the following:

• Loyalty scheme with benefits for using the CBPII card (points, air miles, cash back

etc)

• Customer has a single instrument to make payments from multiple accounts, with no

need to carry a card wallet full of cards

• Customer only has to manage one card relationship, for example:

• Remember the details for one card

• Store the details of one card with a retailer

• Customer will only have a single combined transaction list and statement for all their

purchases

• Single proxy for multiple accounts for all card usages

• Less probability to have a purchase transaction declined as multiple funding accounts

may be used without having to try several different cards

• Less need to handle expiring cards from various bank accounts

Please note that the Confirmation of Funds (CoF) mechanism does not guarantee to the

CBPII that they will receive the funds from the PSUs account, as CoF is only a snapshot

which confirms whether the funds are available at the time of the request. The ASPSP

does not block funds on the PSU's account for the CBPII card payment.

Moreover, please note that the CoF API made available to CBPIIs is for funds checking

only and does not facilitate settlement of the transaction (i.e. the transfer of the funds

from the PSU funding account to the CBPII). This is in the CBPII competitive space and

could be fulfilled using various means such as Direct Debit, PISP push payment etc.

Finally, PSRs and RTS do not appear to place limitation into the number of payment

accounts that can be linked into a single CBPII issued card. This is in the competitive

space of the CBPIIs. Furthermore, PSRs and RTS do not specify which card types can

be linked with the payment account, for example physical cards only or also tokenised

virtual cards. Again, this is in the competitive space of the CBPIIs.



5.1 CBPII Core Journeys

Open Banking API specifications support CoF services for Card Based Payment

Instrument Issuers (CBPIIs). These services allow PSUs to provide explicit consent

to an ASPSP, so that they can respond to confirmation of funds requests from

CBPIIs, limited to a Y/N. CBPIIs can subsequently submit confirmation of funds

requests to the ASPSP provided that the PSU has also provided their explicit

consent to the CBPII and has initiated a payment transaction with the payment

instrument for the amount in question.

This section describes how each of the Participants (CBPIIs and ASPSPs) in the

delivery of these services can optimise the customer experience for these services.

Furthermore, it provides some clarifications to these Participants on the usage of the

APIs which are not covered by the technical specifications and some best practice

guidelines for implementation of the customer journeys.

Please note that unlike AIS journeys, Consent given to ASPSPs and CBPIIs can be

“until further notice” and does not expire after 90 days. Thus, authentication does not

need to occur after the initial set up for the specific CBPII has been completed.

Consent to CBPIIs access will generally be ongoing or setup for a set period of time,

after which PSUs will need to renew it.

Customer Experience Guidelines | Card Based Payment Instrument Issuers


Featured journeys





Enter ASPSP Account Details

Confirm Consent

Confirm Consent

COF Access Confirmation

CBPII ASPSP CBPII

Authentication


Customer Experience Guidelines | Card Based Payments Instrument Issuers

Additional Information





Regulation 68(3)(a) of the PSRs, requires that the CBPIIs must have the explicit consent of the PSU prior to making Confirmation of Funds requests

to the PSUs ASPSPs.

Regulation 68(5)(b) of the PSRs requires that the ASPSPs must have the explicit consent of the PSU prior to responding to the first CBPII

Confirmation of Funds request. This applies to each specific CBPII and each PSU payment account, that is accessible online.

The above journey illustrates the consent given by PSUs for CoF purposes.



Enter ASPSP Account Details

Confirm Consent

Confirm Consent

COF Access Confirmation

CBPII ASPSP CBPII

Authentication

ConfirmCancel

Please enter the details of the account

you wish to link to this CBPII card.

Sort code

Name

Account number

CBPII

Account name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Expiration:

5a

John Smith

48-59-60

12345678

Ongoing

5b

Funds Availablity

YOUR ASPSP

ConfirmCancel

We have received a request from CBPII to

provide confirmation of sufficient funds from the

following account:

Please confirm that you would like us to

respond to future confirmation of funds

requests from CBPII.

Please note that that CBPII will never see your

account balance. We will only provide a ‘Yes or

No’ answer to the CBPII when you use your

CBPII card.


account(s) until: Ongoing


Account name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Expiration:

5a

John Smith

48-59-60

12345678

Ongoing

5b

Account details

CBPII

Thank you

You are now fully set up.

You can manage or revoke your consent at

any time from the accounts page

Continue


In order for us to offer you this service, we

need your permission so we can make future

fund check requests from your chosen

account.

We need to do this to confirm that you have

enough funds in your account when you make

future payments using your CBPII Card.

We will only request a ‘yes or no’ answer from

your ASPSP for your chosen account.


account(s): Ongoing

Account name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Expiration:

5a

John Smith

48-59-60

12345678

Ongoing

5b

Account details

ConfirmCancel

CBPII

You will now be redirected to your ASPSP to

allow them to provide us with future

confirmations of funds.



1

2

3

4

5

8

9

11

7

6

10

Additional Information User Journey Wireframes CEG Checklist Requirements CX Considerations





Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1


CBPIIs must allow PSUs to enter their payment Account Identification details in at least one of the ways specified in the OBIE V3 Read/Write API Specifications (e.g. account

number and sort code - with additional roll number if required, IBAN, PAN, Paym and other formats).

Note: In some of the above cases, CBPIIs may also need PSUs to provide their ASPSP name so that CBPIIs can check whether ASPSPs will be able to match the account

identifier to the underlying PSU payment account.

CBPIIs could also choose to allow PSUs to enter their payment account name.

• RTS Art. 36(4) 34 CBPII Required

2

PSU Consent to CBPII

CBPIIs must provide PSUs sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision about whether to consent to the CBPII making CoF requests to their ASPSP

accounts. For example, the CBPII should provide details on the purpose for which the funds checks will be used (including whether any other parties will have access to the

information) and clear and reassuring messages about what information will be made available from the ASPSPs.

This should include information such as the following:

• Prior to making Confirmation of funds requests to their ASPSPs, CBPIIs must have been given explicit consent by PSUs.

• CBPIIs will only received a 'yes/no' answer about the availability of funds at PSUs' account, sufficient to cover a specific amount of a CBPII transaction.

• The Confirmation of Funds Response will not be stored by CBPIIs.

• Confirmation received by CBPIIs cannot be used for any other purpose than the execution of the transaction for which the request is made.

• The period over which CoF consent is requested and the reasons why.

• How PSUs will be able to revoke their consent through the CBPII environment.

• FCA guidance 17.46 8 CBPII Required

3

PSU Consent to CBPII

CBPIIs must request for the PSUs' consent to in a clear and specific manner.

CBPIIs must display the following information in the consent screen:


• Note 1: if PSU payment Account identification is selected in item #1, CBPIIs should mask the PSU payment Account details on the consent screen. Otherwise, if

the PSU payment Account identification has been input by PSUs in item #1, CBPIIs should not mask these details to allow PSUs to check and verify correctness

• Note 2: if PSU payment Account identification is provided by PSUs in item #2, CBPIIs could use this to identify and display the ASPSP without having to ask

PSUs.

• Expiration Date & Time: Consent could be on-going or for set period of time. If this parameter is provided by CBPIIs the consent will have limited life span and

will expire on the specified date. CBPIIs could choose to align this expiry date with the expiration date of the card based instrument issued to PSUs. Alternatively,

they could choose a different period for security or business reasons, or they could also allow PSUs to select their desired expiry date explaining however the

implications this may have on the usage of their issued card.

• PSU payment Account name, if provided by PSUs in item #1

• FCA guidance 17.46

• PSR Reg. 68(3)(a) & (b)

8

32

CBPII

CBPII

Required

Required

5 Authentication

ASPSPs must apply SCA.

The ASPSP authentication must have no more than the number of steps that the PSU would experience when directly accessing the ASPSP channel.

• Trustee P3/P4 letter Actions

P3 A2 and P3 A6

• EBA Draft Guideline 5.2 (d) 1 ASPSP Required

7

ASPSP Consent

Prior to receiving the first request from each CBPII, ASPSPs must obtain explicit consent from the PSU to provide confirmation of funds to CBPII requests.

ASPSPs must be able to introduce an additional screen to display Information associated with the Confirmation of Funds consent.

ASPSPs must display to PSUs all the information related to the CoF consent. This information includes the following:

• CBPII requesting CoF to the PSU account

• PSU payment Account Name

• PSU payment Account Identification

• Consent Expiration Date & Time: (this could also be ongoing)

Note: PSU's payment account details may be shown in account number and sort-code format in cases when PSU in item #1 provided account identification details in other

formats such as a PAN, IBAN, Paym mobile number, etc., subject to CBPII offering these options.

• PSR Reg. 68(5)(b)


paragraph 17.18 31 ASPSP Required





CX Considerations

4 Generic CBPII to ASPSP redirection Screen and message. Please refer to Section 2.2.5.

6 Authentication

ASPSPs could display a message to prompt PSUs to authenticate to continue with setting up Funds Check.

8

ASPSP Supplementary Information

ASPSPs should provide some supplementary information in relation to their obligations for CoF requests and how these will be handled. This may include but not limited to the following:

• ASPSPs will only respond with a 'yes/no' answer about the availability of funds at PSUs' account, sufficient to cover a specific amount of a CBPII transaction.

• ASPSPs are not permitted to provide additional account information (such as the account balance) or block funds on the PSU's account for the CBPII transaction.

• PSUs may be able to view their history of Confirmation of Funds requests including the identity of CBPIIs which made CoF requests and the provided response, using their Access

Dashboard at their ASPSPs.

• How PSUs will be able to revoke their consent from the ASPSP Access Dashboard.

9 ASPSPs should allow PSUs to review as a part of the authentication process all the information related to the CoF. PSUs can either proceed with the CoF consent or cancel it, on the same

screen with items #7 & #8,using "equal weight" options.

10 Generic ASPSP to CBPII redirection Screen and message. Please refer to Section 2.2.5.

11

CBPII Confirmation

CBPIIs should confirm to PSUs the successful completion of the Confirmation of Funds account access request.

CBPIIs could also choose to display again:

• the PSU payment account identification details (this can now be in masked form)

• the expiration date of the Confirmation of Funds consent





PSU Research Considerations

Research undertaken on behalf of OBIE with consumer PSUs has identified the following points:

• PSUs do not understand the term CBPII and thus other language should be used for the

consent group

• Consumers have no spontaneous awareness or understanding of CBPII. It is easiest to

explain to them using a practical example of how it might operate. Thus, the term CBPII is

unknown and should avoided in customer journeys.

• Once explained, ‘Confirmation of Funds’ is a workable name for part of the process, as is

‘Funds availability check’.

• Other suggestions included: ‘Funds check’, ’Funds confirmation’ and ‘Pre-transaction

check’.

• PSUs trust and are willing to provide their consent to the CBPIIs to make CoF requests to

their ASPSP accounts

• Once the concept has been explained, PSUs are happy to provide consent to make CoF

requests, although in their minds these are of secondary importance compared to

payments.

• PSUs understand that CoF is ‘yes’/ ‘no’ answer and that their ASPSP will neither provide any

other account information to the CBPII such as the actual balance on their account, nor allow

them to initiate any payments

• The process of CoF and what information the CBPII card issuer would have access to are

both easy to understand, once explained, and make sense / reassure PSUs.



Funds Check History

Standard item TPP

Connected CBPII Dashboard

Confirm Deactivation

Account Update Confirmation

ASPSP

Selected Account Change








Regulation 68(6) PSRs states that if the PSU so requests, the ASPSP must inform the PSU of the CBPII which has made previous CoF and the

answer given to that CBPII.

As part of enabling this, ASPSPs must provide PSUs with a facility to view and revoke CoF access that they have given to any CBPII for each

account held at that ASPSP. This section describes how CBPII CoF access should be displayed, including CoF access history and how the customer

journey to revoke them should be constructed.


Funds Check History

Standard item TPP

Connected CBPII Dashboard

Confirm Deactivation


ASPSP

Selected Account Change

Below are the CBPIIs which are

currently linked you your account.

To make changes, please selected the

CBPII below:

CBPII 1

Authorised on: 20/01/20

Expires on: Ongoing

Manage

CBPII 2


Expires on: 18/06/20

Manage

CBPII 3



Manage

YOUR ASPSP


access for:

Cancel data access

Yes

No

TTP 1

YOUR ASPSP

Yes

No

CBPII 1

YOUR ASPSP

Do you wish to cancel CBPII fund

check access to this account?

You should contact CBPII 1 to fully

understand the implications of

withdrawing access.

Account name:

Sort code:

Account number:

Expiration:

5a

John Smith

48-59-60

12345678

Ongoing

5b

View your funds check history

CBPII 1

This service provider has to the ability to check

funds available to the following account:

YOUR ASPSP

Cancel AccessBack

Date Reference Amount Response

29/06/2019

27/06/2019

12/05/2019

29/04/2019

27/04/2019

12/04/2019

12/03/2019

12/02/2019

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

£20.00

£20.00

£9.60

£20.00

£15.90

£11.80

£39.00

£20.00

123456789

765435678

567356865

876754245

432546455

456426245

098765435

345463463

We have successfully cancelled access for:

Thank you

YOUR ASPSP

CBPII 1

CBPII 2



Manage

CBPII 3



Manage

To make changes, please selected the

CBPII below:

Below are the CBPIIs which are

currently linked you your account.




Research indicates that PSUs want to be able to review

'Confirmation of Funds‘(CoF) consents via a dashboard at their

ASPSP.

> See more

1 2

3

4

5






Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1

Access Dashboard

ASPSPs must provide PSUs with Access Dashboard.

The ASPSP Access Dashboard must display all Confirmation of Funds access

authorisations provided to each CBPII. Thus, for each PSU account there must

be a corresponding explicit consent entry for each CBPII that has been granted

CoF access to the account by the PSU.

The Access Dashboard must also describe for each authorisation:

• The status of the authorisation e.g. Active/Inactive

• The ongoing nature of the access or when the CBPII access to the

account will expire

• The date the CoF access was granted by the PSU

P2 and P15

of Agreed

Arrangements 10 ASPSP Required

3 ASPSPS must allow PSUs to revoke the CoF access for each CBPII to a

specific PSU account

P2 and P15

of Agreed

Arrangements

10 ASPSP Required

4

Revocation Request

ASPSPs must allow PSUs to confirm that they want to revoke CoF access of

their account to a specific CBPII.

ASPSPs should inform PSUs that once CoF access is revoked, the CBPII will

no longer be able to check the availability of funds in their account. This may

cause their CBPII transactions to be declined.

ASPSPs should also inform PSUs that they should contact the associated

CBPII whose access has been revoked to inform them of the cancellation of

CoF access to their account and/or fully understand the potential implications of

doing so.

ASPSPs should give equal prominence to the choices of continuing or

cancelling the CBPII CoF access.

P2 and P15

of Agreed

Arrangements

10 ASPSP Required

CX Considerations

2

CoF Access History

For each CBPII having CoF access, ASPSPs should display the PSUs account

details including account name, sort code, account number and expiration date

and time.

ASPSPs must also provide PSUs the ability to request all the CoF access

history (CoF requests and responses) under a specific CBPII.

This must include the identity of the CBPII who made the request, and the

response (Y/N) given. ASPSPs should provide this functionality via the Access

Dashboard.

The COF history could also include the following:

• the date the Confirmation of Funds request has been received by the

ASPSP

• the unique reference of the CoF request

• the amount in relation on the CoF request

Please note that in case ASPSPs are unable to provide a response to a CoF

request to the CBPII, a reason should be provided in the history entry for this

CoF request.

5 ASPSPs should confirm to PSUs that CoF access to their account has been

cancelled.


Research undertaken on behalf of OBIE with consumer PSUs has identified

the following points:

• PSUs want to see the history of all the CoF requests and the response

their ASPSP provided back to the CBPII.

• PSUs expect to see the details of CoF request to their ASPSP such as

the date & time the request was received, the transaction reference,

the CBPII, the account checked and the response by their ASPSP to

the requesting CBPII

• PSUs would want to be able to view the expiration date of the CoF

consent through the ASPSP dashboard or through the CBPII website or

app

• PSUs want to be able to revoke their CoF consent from the ASPSP

dashboard. This is the instinctive place to revoke such consents.





User Journey

Closed Loop Open Loop

Payments networks primarily operate under two different business models that can apply to CBPIIs.

1. Open-loop payments networks, such as Visa and MasterCard that are multi-party and operate through a scheme that connects two financial institutions.

2. Closed-loop networks which issue cards directly to consumers and serve merchants directly.

As per PSD2 regulations, any authorised PSP, be it a bank or a payment institution, can issue payment instruments. Payment instruments not only cover

payment cards such as debit and credit cards, but any personalised device or set of rules agreed between the issuer and the user that is used to initiate a

payment.

The above diagrams illustrate at a high level the usage of the CoF by CBPIIs in both Closed and Open Loop operational models. Note that there is no PSU

journey and this happens in the background.





CEG Checklist Requirements CX Considerations




CEG Checklist Requirements Regulatory Reference CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

A

Confirmation of Funds Response

In response to the CoF request, the ASPSP must provide a Yes/No Answer as a CoF response.

This must include:

• a Yes/No response that funds in the funding payment account checked are sufficient to cover a transaction of the specified amount.

• a unique CoF response identifier. This is unique within the ASPSPs environment. A CBPII has no real use for this identifier however it is provided in order

to have the ability of a full trace for audit purposes.

• This could also include the date and time the CoF response was created.

PSR. Reg 68(4)

RTS Art. 36(1)(c)

RTS, Art. 35(4)(c)

33 ASPSP Mandatory

CEG Checklist Requirements CX Considerations User Journey




CX and other processing requirements

B Confirmation of Funds (CoF) - BAU operation

After PSUs provide their consent for CoF access to CBPIIs, PSUs are no longer required to be involved in the CoF request and response process. As part of the ASPSP consent process, ASPSPs must create a long lived consent and provide to CBPIIs a

unique identifier of the consent. Every subsequent CoF request falling within this consent, must be made using this consent identifier.

C

Confirmation of Funds Request

Every time PSUs initiate a transaction using the CBPII issued card, CBPIIs could choose to make a CoF request to ASPSPs holding the PSU's funding account.

The CoF request must include:

• the identifier of the consent that the customer has previously confirmed

• the transaction amount and currency to which the CoF request pertains

• a unique reference for the CoF request assigned by the CBPII. This is a reference provided by the CBPII and should relate to the ID of the transaction initiated by the PSU using the CBPII issued payment instrument.

D

Notifications to PSUs

As stated above, PSUs are not involved in the CoF Request/Response process at all. PSUs may not even be aware that every time they are initiating a transaction using the CBPII issued instrument (e.g. card) the above process takes place. In addition,

if PSU transactions at the POS fail due to confirmation of funds failure, PSUs may not be aware that this was the reason for the transaction failure. Thus, OBIE recommends the following based on undertaken PSU research:

• Every time a CoF request for a transaction results in a negative response by ASPSPs, ASPSPs should notify PSUs that a funds availability check has responded as such. This notification could take place through various means such as SMS, mobile

notification through the mobile banking app, email, automated voice call etc. The notification could be switched off upon PSU request.

• Alternately, CBPIIs could also decide to notify PSUs in case of negative CoF response in order to allow PSUs to take any corrective actions such as funding the account immediately and retrying the failed transaction or use another funding account for

their card based instrument.

• ASPSPs could also choose to notify their customers on every occasion of a CoF request by a CBPII and not only upon a negative response. This will allow PSUs to identify any CoF requests that may not genuinely be related to a specific CBPII

instrument transaction initiated by them. However, customer research indicates that PSUs do not consider necessary/important notifications on every CoF requests.

• In case ASPSPs are unable to provide responses to CoF requests back to CBPIIs, it is recommended that ASPSPs should send notifications to PSUs about this failure, including a reason for not being able to provide responses back to CBPIIs.

E

CoF Request/Response Processing Considerations

• When ASPSPs receive CoF requests, ASPSP must immediately provide a yes or no answer on the availability of the amount necessary for the execution of the card-based payment transaction. As per the FCA approach document (paragraph 17.22)

‘immediately’ in this context to mean that the response should be sufficiently fast so as not to cause any material delay in the payment transaction, and therefore this is likely to mean the answer must be provided as soon as the request is received.

• CBPIIs should be able to make multiple CoF requests for different transactions simultaneously to ASPSPs (provided the relevant consents have been granted). However, every CoF request must only be made where the payer has initiated a payment

transaction for the corresponding amount.

• CBPIIs should be able to send multiple CoF requests for multiple accounts without having to have first received a response from any previous CoF request message.

• ASPSPs should be able to cope with multiple CoF requests from the same CBPII for PSUs transactions initiated at the same time.

• PSUs may decide to link the same ASPSP account with multiple issued payment instruments (e.g. cards) from multiple CBPIIs. This means that there may be multiple consents for CoF requests to the same account for multiple CBPIIs. In this case, the

ASPSPs should be able to cope with CoF requests from multiple CBPIIs for transactions initiated at the same time.

F • ASPSPs should allow a CBPII request for confirmation of funds even if the identifier, used by the PSU with the CBPII as part of the original consent, is no longer valid where that identifier is not an account number and/or sort code

(e.g. expired/reported lost stolen primary/secondary PAN).


Research undertaken on behalf of OBIE with consumer PSUs has identified the following points:

• CoF is seen as a minor part of the payment process, and it is the confirmation of payments themselves that are the priority for PSUs.

However, PSUs would like to know if a CoF request has resulted in a negative response / technical failure, or if there has been any

suspicious activity e.g. multiple CoF requests at different amounts.

User Journey CEG Checklist Requirements CX Considerations


Connected ASPSP Account Dashboard

Confirm Account Access Revocation


CBPII

Select Account to Change




CBPIIs must provide PSUs with a facility to view and revoke consents that they have given to that CBPII. PSUs may have consented to CoF access

to several accounts from one or more ASPSPs.

This section describes how these consents should be displayed and how the customer journey to revoke them should be constructed.






Connected ASPSP Account Dashboard

Confirm Account Access Revocation


CBPII

Select Account to Change

Cancel Access

Cancel Access

Cancel Access

ASPSP 1

••••6879

ASPSP 2

••••2456

ASPSP 3

••••5678

Consented Accounts

Select the account you want to

manage:

CBPII


access for:

Cancel Funds Check Access

Yes

No

ASPSP 1

••••6879

CBPII

Cancel AccessBack

Active: Ongoing

ASPSP 1

We have funds check access from this

account.

CBPII

Account Details:

Account name:

Sort code:

Account no.:

Expires on:

5a

John Smith

48-59-60

****6879

18/06/20

5b

ASPSP 2

••••2456

ASPSP 3

••••5678

Cancel Access

Cancel Access

Consented Accounts

Select the account you want to manage.

Thank you

We have cancelled access to:

ASPSP 1

••••6879

CBPII



1 2

3

4 5

6






Reference

CEG Checklist


Implementation

Requirements

1

Consent Dashboard

The CBPII Consent Dashboard must display all Confirmation of Funds access

consents provided to the CBPII. Thus, for each PSU account, there must be a

consent entry granting CoF access to the account for CoF purposes by the

PSU.

The Consent Dashboard should also describe for each consent:

• The ASPSP

• The ongoing nature of the consent and when the consent for CoF access

to the account will expire

• The date the CoF consent was granted by the PSU

• In addition, the CBPII Consent Dashboard could also include details on

the purpose for which the funds checks is used (including whether any

other parties will have access to the information) and clear and reassuring

messages about what information is made available from the ASPSPs, as

per the examples described in 5.1.1, item #2.

P2 and P15

of Agreed

Arrangements 9 CBPII Required

3 CBPIIs must allow PSUs to revoke the CoF consent for each specific ASPSP

account

P2 and P15

of Agreed


4

Cancellation Request

CBPIIs must allow PSUs to confirm that they want to cancel CoF consent of

their account to the CBPII.

CBPIIs should inform PSUs that once CoF consent is revoked, the CBPII will

no longer be able to check the availability of funds in their account.

CBPIIs should inform PSUs of the exact consequences of cancelling their

consent, for example it may cause their CBPII transactions to be declined

or they will no longer be able to receive the specific services from the CBPIIs

etc

CBPIIs should give equal prominence to the choices of continuing or

cancelling the CBPII CoF consent

P2 and P15

of Agreed


5

CBPIIs must inform ASPSPs that PSUs have withdrawn their consent by

making call to the DELETE API endpoint (as described in Release 3 of the

Read/Write API specifications). This will ensure that no further CoF account

access will be accepted by ASPSPs.

ASPSPs must support the Delete process as described in the Release 3

Read/Write API specifications.

Note: This activity is not visible to PSUs as it takes place in the background,

however it will ensure no further CoF responses are provided by ASPSPs to

CBPIIs)

- P2 and P15 of

Agreed

Arrangements 9

CBPII

ASPSP Required

CX Requirements

2

For each ASPSP account granted CoF access, CBPIIs should display the PSU

payment account identification (such as account name, sort code and account

number) and expiration date and time.

Note: PSU account number should be masked

6 CBPII Confirmation

CBPIIs should confirm to PSUs that CoF consent to their account has been

cancelled.


Research undertaken on behalf of OBIE with consumer PSUs has

identified the following points:

• PSUs would want to be able to view the expiration date of the

CoF consent through the ASPSP dashboard or through the

CBPII website or app

• PSUs also want to be able to revoke their CoF consent from

the CBPII website or app. This could be especially convenient

if there are several ASPSPs involved – they can do it all in

one place, rather than have to log-in to several systems



6.0 The Customer Experience Checklist

The Customer Experience Guidelines Checklist ("the CEG Checklist") will serve as

an essential tool that will enable Participants to certify against key criteria identified in

the Customer Experience Guidelines, by answering specific questions used

to demonstrate the Participant’s conformance to the Guidelines.

For ASPSPs in particular, this certification tool will assist in the process of applying

for the contingency mechanism exemption, by serving as an integral component in

showing how Open Banking Standard Implementation Requirements are

appropriately met. The CEG Checklist will also be useful in aiding Participants

to identify deviations from the Open Banking Standard Implementation

Requirements, as contemplated by Guideline 6 of the EBA’s Draft Guidelines on the

conditions to be met to benefit from an exemption from contingency measures. Of

course, the views of OBIE in relation to non-CMA Order matters are indicative only

and the final decision on an exemption is a matter for individual ASPSPs and their

NCA. Additionally, we would note that the CEG Checklist is subject to change in the

future depending on market and regulatory developments; in particular, we reserve

the right to edit the CEG Checklist following the completion of the EBA consultation

on their guidelines for granting an exemption from the contingency mechanism.

The CEG Checklist has been developed in parallel with the Customer Experience

Guidelines, and for each customer journey that is detailed in the Guidelines,

the relevant CEG Checklist criteria and questions have been highlighted. Items on

the CEG Checklist are marked as Mandatory and Conditional and references are

made to the relevant rationale of the CEG Checklist item, whether CMA Order,

PSD2/RTS (including the recent EBA Opinion and the Draft Guidelines) or the Open

Banking Standard Implementation Requirements.


We would note that while non-CMA9 ASPSPs are not required to comply with the

CMA Order, it is at the discretion of Open Banking to define the Open Banking

Standard Implementation Requirements and any item marked "required" is

compulsory for successful certification. We note that non-CMA9 ASPSPs may

choose not to comply with some or any of the Open Banking Standard

Implementation Requirements, but it is expected that any deviations would need to

be explained to the relevant competent authority as per the current EBA

guidelines, where that ASPSP is seeking the contingency mechanism

exemption. Similarly, TPPs have no legal responsibility to conform to the CEG

Checklist and, assuming they meet their regulatory requirements, may adopt the

Open Banking Standards and use the Directory without meeting items marked as

“required”. However, they would not then meet the Standard Implementation

Requirements and therefore not certify as meeting the Open Banking Standard.

Participants will be invited to submit videos of their customer journeys

demonstrating their conformance with the CEG Checklist, and each submission

will be assessed by the OBIE. For CMA9 ASPSPs, these videos will assist the

Trustee in confirming to the CMA that the CMA remedies are being met. The OBIE

Monitoring Function is due to be operational by 31st October 2018 under the Office

of the Trustee.


6.1 Explanation of the Customer Experience Guidelines Checklist

Customer Experience Guidelines | The Customer Experience Checklist

The CEG Checklist is ultimately intended to drive certain behaviours and

functionality in the ecosystem in order to:

• Deliver excellent customer experiences that are simple and secure

• Promote innovation

• Ultimately, encourage adoption of Open Banking by both TPPs and consumers

This includes ensuring that:

• Any supplementary information that is ancillary to the journey provides clear

customer benefit

• ASPSPs are able to demonstrate that their implementations “do not give rise to

unnecessary delay, friction or any other attributes that would mean that PSUs are

directly or indirectly dissuaded from using the services of PISPs, AISPs and CBPIIs"

• ASPSPs provide the full level of functionality available to PSUs available through the

direct online channel irrespective of the TPP channel and authentication method

It should be noted that for the CMA9 – and any other ASPSP that adopts the Open

Banking standard – it is expected that a completed CEG Checklist is submitted at least

for a.) each dedicated interface, and b.) each brand and segment (Personal Current

Accounts and Business Current Accounts). We note that brands may have the same

implementations and dedicated interfaces, which means the same CEG Checklist can

be submitted. Further, we encourage those completing the CEG Checklist to consider if

any further submissions may be appropriate, for example if an ASPSP has "app-only"

customers, where having a consolidated CEG Checklist could lead to different answers

being provided. Each CEG Checklist submission should be signed off by the relevant

business owner.

The CEG Checklist is not intended to be a check on technical functionality or technical

performance. The CEG Checklist relates to the Customer Experience Guidelines only.

In developing the CEG Checklist questions, we have defined some key principles that

each question must adhere to:

• OBJECTIVE – be fact based and not rely upon the judgement of the ASPSP or TPP

• CLEAR – standalone, single clause, closed questions which demand a “yes or no”

answer

• DEFINED – unambiguous and tightly constructed with links to definitions where

appropriate

• TRACEABLE – based on regulatory requirements and/or the OB Standard

Implementation Requirements (rationale for inclusion and classification will be made

explicit)

The usual governance process as followed for development of the Evaluations and

Proposition papers or changes to the Open Banking Standards will be followed in order

to sign off this CEG Checklist, culminating in the Customer Experience Guidelines

(including the CEG Checklist) being taken for sign-off at Implementation Entity Steering

Group (IESG). Future changes to the CEG Checklist will accompany future releases of

the Open Banking Standards.


6.2 Customer Experience Guidelines Checklist


General

Definitions:

The following terms are used in the column marked Open Banking Implementation Requirements:

Required – Participants must respond in accordance with the specified response in the ‘Notes’ column for successful conformance

with Open Standard Implementation Requirements.

Recommended – Participants should respond in accordance with the specified response in the ‘Notes’ column to enable the

desired customer outcomes described in the Customer Experience Guidelines, however, this may not be required for successful

conformance with Open Standard Implementation Requirements.

The following terms are used in the columns marked CMA Order and PSD2/RTS:

Mandatory - Required in all cases for regulatory compliance and/or to deliver essential customer outcome

Conditional - Required if these are made available to the PSU in the ASPSP's existing Online Channel

n/a - not applicable

Reference Topic Participant

(TPP, ASPSP) Checklist question Notes

Open Banking

Implementation

Requirements

CMA Order PSD2 /

RTS Regulatory reference(s)

1. Authentication ASPSP Is your Open Banking authentication journey equivalent to the

journey experienced by a PSU when authenticating directly

within your existing online channel(s) (e.g. browser and app)?

Answer must be "Yes" Required Mandatory Mandatory • Trustee P3/P4 letter Actions P3 A2 and P3 A6


ASPSP At any point during the Open Banking customer journey, do

you ask the PSU for consent for the TPP to access account

information or initiate a payment?

Answer must be "No" Required Mandatory Mandatory • EBA Opinion paragraph 13

• EBA Draft Guideline 5.2 (c) and paragraph 34 (c)

• RTS Art. 32(3)


2.

ASPSP Can a PSU identify your firm as genuine and legitimate within

the authentication journey?

Answer should be "Yes" Recommended n/a n/a • Consumer priorities 3.

ASPSP Can a PSU authenticate using all channels (e.g. browser, app)

offered by the ASPSP for authentication, irrespective of the

channel via which the TPP is presenting their service?

Answer should be "Yes"

Recommended n/a Conditional • EBA Draft Guideline 5.1(b)

• EBA Opinion paragraph 50 4.

ASPSP Do you support app-to-app redirection? Answer must be "Yes“ for CMA9, and

should be “Yes” for other ASPSPs

Required Mandatory Conditional • EBA Draft Guideline 5.1(b)

• EBA Opinion paragraph 50

• Trustee P3/P4 letter Action P3 A6

5a.

TPP If your proposition includes a mobile app, do you support app-

to-app redirection?

Answer should be "Yes" Recommended n/a n/a • n/a 5b.

ASPSP Do you support Decoupled authentication? Answer could be "Yes" Recommended n/a Conditional • EBA Opinion paragraph 50

• Trustee P3/P4 letter Action P4 A2 6.

7. Error codes ASPSP Do you provide error codes to the TPP as per the error codes

specified in the Read/Write Data API Specification v3.0 for

failed requests?

Answer must be "Yes" Required Mandatory Mandatory • RTS Art. 36(2)

• EBA Opinion Table 1

8. Consent TPP Do you gather consent in a clear, specific and straightforward

manner as per the principles described in Sections 3.1.1 (AIS),

4.1.1 (PIS) and 5.1.1 (CBPII) of the Customer Experience

Guidelines?

Answer must be "Yes"

Required n/a Mandatory • PSR Regs. 68(3)(a), 69(2) and 70(3)(a)

• FCA Approach Document paragraphs 17.46 and

17.47

9. Consent

dashboard

TPP Can a PSU view and revoke on-going consent in a Consent

Dashboard (as per Sections 3.1.3 and 5.1.4 of the Customer

Experience Guidelines)?

Answer must be "Yes" Required n/a n/a • P2 and P15 of Agreed Arrangements

10. Access

dashboards

ASPSP Do you make available an access dashboard which allows

PSUs to view and revoke TPP access which has been

previously granted (as per Section 3.1.4 of the Customer

Experience Guidelines)?

Answer must be "Yes" Required Mandatory n/a • P2 and P15 of Agreed Arrangements

11. Complaints Both Do you provide an easy way for the PSU to understand the

complaints and dispute resolution process?

Answer must be "Yes" Required n/a Mandatory • PSR Reg. 101


6.2 Customer Experience Guidelines Checklist continued




Open Banking

Implementation

Requirements

CMA Order PSD2 /


12. Consent AISP Do you make it clear when the consent to access account

information will expire (including if it is one-off access or

ongoing access)?

Answer must be "Yes" Required n/a n/a • FCA Approach Document paragraph 17.46

13a. Data clusters ASPSP Do you use the OBIE language shown under the Customer

Experience Guidelines Section 3.2.3 to describe the data

clusters when communicating with the PSU?

Answer must be "Yes" Required Mandatory n/a • CMA Order 10.2

13b. AISP Do you use the OBIE language shown under the Customer

Experience Guidelines Section 3.2.3 to describe the data

clusters when communicating with the PSU?

Answer must be "Yes" Required n/a n/a • n/a

14. Functionality ASPSP Do you provide access to all account information made

available to the PSU through your existing online channel(s),

irrespective of the channel through which the TPP is

presenting their service to the PSU?

Answer must be "Yes" Required Mandatory Mandatory • RTS Art. 36(1)(a)

• EBA Opinion paragraphs 18 and 20

15. ASPSP Do you apply the same access control rules to joint and multi-

signatory accounts when accessed through a TPP as are

applied when these accounts are accessed directly by the

PSU?

Answer must be "Yes" Required n/a Mandatory • PSR Reg. 70(2)(b)

16. Authenticating to

refresh access

AISP Do you notify the PSU when authentication is required to

refresh AISP access at the ASPSP? Answer should be "Yes"

This could occur for example every 90

days where the ASPSP is applying the

RTS Article 10 exemption

Recommended n/a n/a • P2 and P15 of Agreed Arrangements

17. ASPSP When a PSU is authenticating to refresh AISP access without

making any changes to the original consent request, does

your journey include any steps or screens other than those

required for authentication of the PSU, for example, re-

selection of the account(s) to which access was originally

granted?

Answer must be "No" Required n/a Mandatory • RTS Art. 33(2)

18. Completion AISP Do you provide confirmation of a successful account

information data request following each PSU

authentication?


e.g. through a receipt or confirmation

within TPP domain

Required n/a n/a • n/a

Account Information Services






Open Banking

Implementation

Requirements

CMA Order PSD2 /


19. Functionality ASPSP For payments that do not require the display of

supplementary information (as defined in the Customer

Experience Guidelines 4.1.2) does your journey involve any

further steps (as defined in the Customer Experience

Guidelines 4.1.1) or screens following authentication?

Answer must be "No" Required Mandatory Mandatory • Trustee P3/P4 letter Action P3 A2

• RTS Art. 33(2)

20. ASPSP Do you provide supplementary information where it is

required, in an equivalent way, to direct interactions with

PSUs?

Answer must be "Yes" Required n/a Mandatory

• EBA Draft Guideline 5.2(d)

21. ASPSP Can a PSU using a PISP utilise all PIS functionality offered

by the ASPSP to the PSU in their online channel, irrespective

of the channel or method used for authentication?


Required Mandatory Mandatory • EBA Draft Guidelines 2.3(c)

• PSR Reg. 69(2)(c)

• FCA Approach Document paragraphs 17.29 to

17.31

22. PISP Do you capture the minimum set of parameters required for

the payment instruction to be completed for each payment

type?


Minimum set of parameters are defined

in the Section 4 of the Customer

Experience Guidelines

Required n/a Mandatory • RTS Art. 36(4)

23. ASPSP In cases where the payment instruction is incomplete

because the account details have not been provided by the

PSU to the PISP, do you allow the PSU to select the

account from which they wish to make the payment?

Answer must be "Yes" Required Mandatory

n/a • CMA Order 10.2

24. PISP Do you offer the PSU at least one of the available options for

selecting the payment account during the payment initiation

as defined in the Customer Experience Guidelines Section 4?


The available options for selecting an

account are defined in Section 4 as:

• enter their Account Identification

details directly to the PISP

• select their Account Identification

details at the PISP (this assumes

they have been saved previously)

• select their ASPSP in order to select

their account from within the

ASPSP’s domain later in the journey

Required n/a n/a • n/a

Payment Initiation Services






Open Banking

Implementation

Requirements

CMA Order PSD2 /


25. Status of payment

ASPSP Do you provide or make available all information regarding initiation

and execution of the payment to the PISP immediately after receipt

of the payment order?

Answer must be "Yes" Required Mandatory Mandatory • PSR Reg. 69(2)(b)

• RTS Art. 36(1)(b)

• FCA Approach Document paragraphs 17.23 –

17.24

26. PISP Do you display all the required information to the PSU immediately

after the initiation of the payment order?


Types of information are defined in

Section 4.1

Required n/a Mandatory

• PSR Reg. 44(1)

27. PISP After receiving the initial payment status information, do you follow

up with the ASPSP in order to get the latest status of the payment

and inform the PSU accordingly?

Answer should be "Yes" Recommended n/a n/a • n/a

28.

Display of

payment details

ASPSP Do you make the PSU aware of the amount/currency/payee as part

of the authentication journey?

Answer must be “Yes”, unless an

SCA exemption is being applied

Required n/a Conditional • RTS Art. 5(1)(a)

29. Confirmation of

funds ("yes/no"

response)*

ASPSP Do you provide immediate confirmation of whether or not there are

funds available at the PISP’s request, in a ‘yes or no’ format?


See asterix (*) below table

Required n/a Mandatory • RTS Art. 36(1)(c)


30. Future Dated

Payments &

Standing Orders

PISP Do you inform the PSU that amendment or cancellation of standing

orders and future dated payments must be performed directly with

their ASPSP?


Required n/a n/a

Payment Initiation Services continued

CBPII



Open Banking

Implementation

Requirements

CMA Order PSD2 /


31. Explicit consent ASPSP Do you, prior to receiving the first request from each CBPII, obtain

explicit consent from the PSU to provide confirmation of funds in

response to CBPII requests (as shown under the Customer

Experience Guidelines Section 5)?

Answer must be "Yes" Required n/a Mandatory • PSR Reg. 68(5)(b)


32. Explicit consent CBPII Do you obtain explicit consent from the customer to request the

confirmation of funds?

Answer must be "Yes”

Minimum set of parameters are

defined in the Section 5 of the


Required n/a Mandatory • PSR Reg. 68(3)(a)

33. Functionality CBPIII Do you only request confirmation of funds when the PSU has

initiated a payment transaction for the amount in question using the

card based instrument?


Required

n/a

Mandatory

• PSR Reg. 68(3)(b)

34. Confirmation of

funds ("yes/no"

response)

ASPSP Do you provide immediate confirmation of funds in the form of a ‘yes’

or ‘no’ answer to a CBPII request where the payment account is

accessible online?

Answer must be "Yes" Required n/a Mandatory • PSR Reg. 68(4)

• RTS Art. 36(1)(c)


Note: CMA Order includes the Trustee's P3/P4 Evaluation letter and PSD2 / RTS includes the EBA Opinion and (draft) Exemption Guidel ines

* The Release 3.0 candidate does not include provision of this for PISPs, however, the FCA are clear on the requirement for this and the current plan is to deliver this as part of

Release 3.1. For this reason we have included this item in the Checklist.




Ref Topic

1 Equivalence covers a range of topics including:

• functionality

• access rights (if a joint account holder can access all account information or initiate payments without any action on the part of

the other account holder directly with the ASPSP, then this functionality should be available when using a TPP)

• authentication methods (and the order in which they are presented)

• the process covering mistakes when inputting an authentication element (e.g. typo of a password)

• length of journey / number of steps (this means that having to manually open a browser or an app must be avoided as that is

not required in a direct experience, except for the generation of a code on a mobile app)

• visual display including branding, imaging, fonts and text formatting

• version control and equivalence for authentication i.e. authentication works with all available versions of the app

For clarity, the experience should match the associated channel e.g. if biometric can be used on an app, then this should be available to the PSU when a TPP is involved

2 Additional checks of consent

While an ASPSP may provide additional information and clarification throughout the journey, at no stage should the ASPSP seek to reconfirm or check that the PSU wants the TPP to perform the activity they have consented to. For example, language such as

"Are you sure you want to grant access to TPP..." or "TPP has asked us to initiate a payment, please confirm you are happy with this...“ should be avoided,

Further explanation and clarification of this point is found throughout the Customer Experience Guidelines journeys.

3 Identifying your firm as genuine

For example have personalised greetings during authentication so that someone knows they are authenticating with their own ASPSP and not a fake

5a App-to-app redirection

As provided in the P3/P4 Evaluation letter, the OBIE definition of App-to-App is:

'App-to-App' redirection allows the TPP to redirect a PSU from the TPP application (in a mobile web browser or mobile app) to the ASPSP’s mobile app, installed on the PSU's device, where the TPP is able to transmit details of the request along with PSU

preferences (e.g. product type, one-step authentication) and deep link the PSU into the ASPSP app login screen or function. The PSU is then authenticated through their app using the same credentials/methods as normally used when the PSU directly accesses

their account using the app (typically biometric). This must not involve any additional steps (such as being redirected first to a web page to select which ASPSP app to use) and must not require the PSU to provide any PSU identifier or other credentials to the

ASPSP if their current ASPSP app does not require this. Where the PSU does not have the ASPSP's mobile app, they should experience a redirection flow which should not involve additional steps than would be the case when the PSU authenticates with the

ASPSP directly (e.g. be redirected to the ASPSP's mobile website).

7 Error Codes:

ASPSPs must provide TPPs with the error codes included in the Read/Write API specification for failed requests (see Appendix 7.6). TPPs should then use the error code provided to determine the content of the message displayed to the PSU. This message

should describe, in user-friendly language, what has gone wrong and what the PSU should do next. (OBIE will carry out research into effective PSU error/failure messaging from the TPP and include the output in the next revision of these guidelines).

8 Consent

PSUs must be able to understand the nature of the service being provided to them, and the consent should be clear and specific

14 Functionality – account information

Note this refers to account information as defined in the PSRs. Please consult Section 3.2.4 for clarity around "Optional Data" (e.g."Party data")

15 Functionality – joint accounts

If a joint account holder can access all account information without any action on the part of the other account holder directly with the ASPSP, then this functionality should be available when using an AISP.

17 Authenticating to refresh access

There an example in Section 3.1.2 that clarifies this -

In this example nothing in the consent request has changed (e.g. the PSU gave consent for account information to be shared for the payment account and wishes the TPP to continue to have access to the account)

If the PSU has an opportunity to reselect or change the consent request and accounts being shared, this requires a full end to end journey as per the initial consent journey including account selection as in 3.1.1.

The point of this question is to ensure that the journey in 3.1.2 is shorter than that in 3.1.1.




Ref Topic

19 & 20 Supplementary Information:

ASPSPs should determine the situations where Supplementary Information is required to be shown to the PSU, having regard to

the principle that parity should be maintained between Open Banking journeys and ASPSP direct online channel journeys.

Supplementary Information may be required:

• Where fees and charges apply (e.g. for single CHAPS payment)

• Where interest rates apply

• To facilitate confirmation of payee (for UK implementations, where ASPSPs applied COP validation and found inconsistency

between payee account name

• To display a PSU warning that the relevant payment account will become overdrawn / exceed an overdraft limit as a result

of the intended payment

• If the relevant payment submission cut-off time has elapsed and the ASPSP wishes to offer an execution date/time

• Where the PSU has been identified by the ASPSPs as a vulnerable customer (who therefore receives tailored journeys and

messages in ASPSP’s own online platforms)

• To show value-add information based on functionality implemented by ASPSPs in competitive space which provides

positive customer outcome (e.g. cashflow prediction engine)

• For high value transactions using a different payment scheme

• Where the payments may be duplicated by the customer in a short period (e.g. ASPSP may display a warning that payment

appears to be duplicated).

21. Functionality – payment initiation

For example, even if an international payment can only be made through a web browser when a PSU accesses the ASPSP directly, the PSU must be able to make an international payment via a PISP irrespective of authentication channel.

25. Functionality – payment status

This deals with the status of payment and more specifically, to meet the regulatory requirement as per PSR Reg. 69(2)(b). Currently, the "Payment Status End point" allows an ASPSP to provide the TPP with a status message regarding the payment initiation

and payment execution (pending, rejected, or accepted) at the point in time, when the ASPSP receives the payment order from the PISP for execution.


7.0 Appendices



Appendices










7.6 Open Banking Read/Write API Specification v3.0 –

StandardError Codes



Customer Experience Guidelines | Appendices



1. Trust

There is a natural tendency for consumers to feel unsure about, or even sceptical about, new ways of doing

things. This is especially so when it comes to financial management and making financial transactions, areas

where consumers tend to be inherently cautious. There is a recognition that the consequences of dealing with a

company which is untrustworthy or experiencing the effects of a data breach can be severe for consumers.

The research reveals a clear link between the transparency of any new product or service and the willingness of

potential users to trust it. With both consumers and SMEs trust can be earned around Open Banking enabled

services if ASPSPs and TPPs are open and clear in explaining the steps in the process, what is happening

throughout the journey, where consent needs to be given and in reassuring about security.

Consumers will be reassured by a clear consent process that explains what they are consenting to. A three-step

process, involving the PSU giving consent to a TPP, authentication at ASPSP and a final step at the TPP that

summarises the sharing of information or initiation of payment offers this clarity. More truncated processes can

also provide reassurance but, with fewer steps, the need for absolute clarity of information presentation is

increased.

Trust is essential in encouraging the use of AIS, but it is PIS journeys where it is most critical since the risk

associated with potential loss of funds is more immediately recognised than the risks associated with loss of data.

Review steps during a journey can help to build trust. This trust is equally important to individual consumers and

SMEs. The research shows that, for both audiences, the larger the purchase, the greater the need for trust.

The research indicates that PSUs have a greater tendency to trust ASPSPs, with whom they will already have

relationships relating to their finances, than TPPs. ASPSP processes are familiar, and they are known established

brands. Many TPPs, especially those without an existing brand or presence in the market, will need to work

harder to prove their trustworthiness with consumers. They need to ensure, in developing services and the

communications that go with them, that they are at least as clear and transparent as ASPSPs. Using an ASPSPs

logo, for example on redirection screens, will make consumers feel more trust in the process, and provide

reassurance regarding authenticity.

Trust can also be built by using different and multiple channels for receipts, for example, SMS, email or letter, as

well as within the PISP and ASPSP screens.

2. Security

Concerns about security were a consistent theme across all the research conducted. Consumers and SMEs

recognise that there are risks inherent in sharing banking information and data. However, their understanding of

the nature of such risks and what can be done to mitigate them is limited.

Concerns stem from uncertainty and focus on issues such as data sharing and privacy, fears about cybersecurity

and fraud. Providing reassurance about the security of processes and journeys will be fundamental to the success

of the Open Banking ecosystem.

The research shows that concerns about security tend to be expressed more strongly concerning PIS journeys.

Security is vital for both consumers and SMEs, but it is especially critical for SMEs, due to the nature and scale of

the transactions involved. SMEs are more likely to be making more payments of higher value, and their

businesses may depend on these being made securely. There may also be reputation considerations involved.

There is a link between security and control, as being reassured about security gives PSUs a sense of being in

control, which will increase their willingness to explore products, services and benefits available more fully.

There is also a link between security and ease. Consumers would prefer not to have to enter details manually but

for details to be prepopulated or dropdown boxes provided. Not only is this easier for the consumer, but it also

minimises the risk of them making errors.

Consumers want guarantees and protection to be built into Open Banking customer journeys. They tend to look to

both ASPSPs and TPPs to provide this. However, they recognise that there could be a trade-off involved between

the need for protection and potential offers, discounts or benefits, and may be willing to take more risk in some

circumstances, particularly when making smaller transactions.

Consumers need security messages to be clear and well sign-posted, and they value confirmation and

reconfirmation. Some customers also value the extra step involved in decoupled journeys.

Providing supplementary information plays a vital role in delivering reassurance and a sense of security for

consumers. Consumers express concern if some journeys feel ‘too easy’. Consumers would feel more

comfortable if, for example, the process of initiating more substantial payments had more positive friction within it

than that for smaller transactions.

The Open Banking Implementation Entity (OBIE) has undertaken considerable customer research over 18 months; this section draws out the themes and principles identified from this consumer and SME research. These are the

principles that should be considered when establishing Open Banking Customer Journeys.




3. Speed

While supplementary information is welcome in some journeys, the research shows that, in general, consumer

PSUs prefer shorter journeys. Those with too many steps or which appear too repetitive are likely to discourage

adoption. Consumers recognise the potential trade-off between speed, clarity and security.

Open Banking journeys should feel smooth, with services easy for consumers to use, and with minimal scrolling,

clicking and wait times. Consumers will also find journeys that feel familiar to be simpler to understand and

navigate, allowing them to complete them more quickly and efficiently. New or unfamiliar journeys should feel

seamless and intuitive, analogous to existing financial services journeys.

Many consumers find app-based journeys easier than web-based, due to less information being shown on screen,

as well as the general high mobile usage and comfort amongst consumers, and the intuitive nature of a

touchscreen.

4. Transparency

The research showed the need for transparency around Open Banking customer journeys. Consumer PSUs are

reassured when they understand what is happening at each stage of the process and find that there is a logical

flow to the steps within a journey. Transparency requires that the journey enables the consumer to comprehend

what is happening, is clear about what they are agreeing to and find the process convenient. Transparency is also

key to building trust, as discussed above.

Amongst the things that research indicates ASPSPs and TPPs can do to deliver transparency for PSUs are

explaining things clearly, confirming payments and providing helpful information and prompts.

Key to delivering transparency is the way in which information is presented. The provision of technical information

and extensive detail can sometimes undermine transparency. For example, some of the detail around

international payment methods and FX, if not explained clearly, can lead PSUs to feel confused.

TPPs and ASPSPs should be clear as to why they require customers to share the information they are

requesting. If the customer is transparent with their data, so the providers should be clear about what they will do

with it. This sense of reciprocity will also help engender trust.

The research has shown that the language used to explain PIS and AIS services and the steps involved in the

journeys needs to be consumer-friendly and not open to misinterpretation. Communication needs to be familiar, if

possible, so consumers can identify what it is and link it to something they know, or may already use. Entirely new

concepts should be explained in clear, plain English and with consistent use of terms, and minimal technical

language/jargon.

5. Control

Throughout the research conducted for OBIE, the need for customers to feel in control, throughout an AIS or PIS

journey, was a recurrent theme.

There are clear links between control, security and ease of use / navigability. Where customers trust the security,

they feel in control. Where they can understand what is happening, they will feel a sense of control over the

process.

Being able to review, check and confirm (positive friction) are all sources of control for consumers. Enabling

revocation is also important. The knowledge that a decision can be reversed adds reassurance, particularly when

doing something for the first time.

Control is also linked to transparency. If ASPSPs and TPPs are transparent, the PSU feels more in control.

Dashboards also help consumers feel a sense of control. Dashboards provide consumers with evidence of activity

and the ability to review in case of problems or issues.







S. No. Journey Ref. Research Findings Theme

Ref. no. Research evidence - what, who, why, and quantitative stats where available

1 2.2.1

Research amongst consumers has shown that 29% of participants actively prefer a browser-based PIS journey for a single domestic payment, while 32%

prefer an app based journey. Those preferring a browser-based journey refer to security and ease to explain their choice. Those preferring the app based

alternative select it because they deem it easier than the web-based experience, with fewer mentioning security.

Security

Speed

Control

2 2.2.2

Research amongst consumers has shown that 29% of participants actively prefer a browser-based PIS journey for a single domestic payment, while 32%

prefer an app based journey. Those preferring a browser-based journey refer to security and ease to explain their choice. Those preferring the app based

alternative select it because they deem it easier than the web-based experience, with fewer mentioning security.

Security

Speed

Control

3 2.2.2 Consumer research has shown that people feel authentication via Fingerprint ID adds a reassuring sense of security to the journey. Security

4 2.2.2 Research amongst consumers has shown that within a TPP domain in an app to app context, 45% of participants want to have a 'proceed' button to click

after reviewing account information, to confirm payment and begin the biometric authentication process. They feel this is secure and gives them control.

Security

Control

5 2.2.5

Research amongst consumers and SME PSUs has shown that the presence of the ASPSP's logo on the PISP to ASPSP redirection screen is important

(70% and 74% respectively saying this) and that it makes them trust the process more (66% and 77%) respectively.

A two to three second delay on the redirections screens, may encourage wider take up without causing irritation as the time delay provides reassurance of

the bank’s involvement. This is important to older consumers and the less financially savvy.

Trust

Transparency

6 2.3.1

Research shows that consumers are familiar with decoupled authentication when making a payment or setting up a new payment. This means that, if PIS

journey designs follow similar patterns, consumers will be comfortable with them. Many welcome the additional level of securi ty decoupled authentication

provides.

Security

7 2.3.2

Research shows that consumers are familiar with decoupled authentication when making a payment or setting up a new payment. This means that, if PIS

journey designs follow similar patterns, consumers will be comfortable with them. Many welcome the additional level of securi ty decoupled authentication

provides.

Security

8 2.3.2 Consumer research has shown that although 62% of people feel having to generate a one-time code on a mobile app is 'annoying‘. Security

9 3.1.3 In addition, consumer research has shown that respondents prefer confirmation of a revocation in writing via email in addition to text on the website. Trust

Control

10 3.1.4 Consumer research has shown that people feel most confident that a revocation has been actioned when it is has taken place with an ASPSP. Their

perception is that they are 'stopping' the information at 'source' rather than instructing a TPP not to 'take' the information.

Trust

Control

11 3.2.2

Research amongst consumers has shown that utilising simple, familiar language enables consumers to understand the broad categories of account data

that may be required by AISPs. 'Your Account Details', 'Your Regular Payments', 'Your Account Transactions' and 'Your Account Features and Benefits' (as

opposed to '...Services') were all shown by research to offer appropriate levels of clarity.

Transparency


https://openbanking.atlassian.net/browse/OBSD-4974









12 4.1.1 Research amongst consumers has shown that 64% of participants prefer to be shown confirmation that payment has been received at the TPP. This would

provide reassurance that the process has worked. Transparency

13 4.1.1 Research amongst consumers has shown that 26% of participants would prefer a payment process with a single summary step in one domain. They felt that

it was the easiest method. Speed

14 4.1.1

Research amongst consumers has shown that 37% of participants wish to select the account from which to make a payment within the TPP's domain. The

reasons for this relate to the following conventions they are both used to and comfortable with. However, 32% of participants had no preference of

how/where to select an account.

Security

Speed

15 4.1.3 When account selection is done at the ASPSP, research amongst consumers has shown that 58% of participants prefer to be shown the balance for their

selected payment account, before reviewing a payment. This was felt to assist in good personal financial management. Control

16 4.1.4 Consumer research has shown that 82% of consumers would like to see the payment schedule at least once in the journey. Trust

17 4.1.4 The term 'Pending', when employed in this context, is clear and understood by consumers. Trust

18 4.1.4 Consumer research has shown that 73% of consumers prefer to see exactly when a payment will be taken. Trust

19 4.1.4 Consumer research has shown that 64% of people would prefer to see a message at the top of the ASPSP page which states that the TPP cannot see the

information here. Security

20 4.1.5 Research amongst consumers has shown that they are not always able to differentiate between Standing Orders and Direct Debits. This means it is

important to be clear about the details of a new payment arrangement when it is being set up.

Transparency

Control

21 4.1.5 Consumer research has shown that 73% of consumers prefer to see exactly when a payment will be taken. Trust

22 4.1.5 Research has shown that 63% of consumers and 75% of SMEs, feel 'ok' about having to go direct to their bank's website to amend a Standing Order. Security

23 4.1.5 Research amongst consumers has shown that a 3 step process of Consent - Authentication - Summary Information step gives the customer an assurance

they are engaging with their bank, creating confidence. This feeling comes from an impression that they have 'overseen' the entire set-up process.

Trust

Security






24 4.1.5 Research amongst consumers has shown that they consider it important to be able to schedule a recurring payment to be paid on the same date every

month. There is currently some frustration with providers who do not take payments on set dates but rather indicate a window when payment will be taken. Control

25 4.1.5

Research amongst consumers has shown that the summary information step acts as a confirmation of exactly what they have consented to. This also

creates a 'safety net' preventing inadvertent/unauthorised permissions and offers the opportunity for greater financial discipline due to the time afforded to

review a standing order commitment.

Trust

Security

Control

26 4.1.6 Consumer research has shown that people find a recognisable ASPSP login page and process reassuring and increases their confidence in the journey. Trust

Security

27 4.1.6 Research has shown that consumers find it reassuring to receive confirmation of precisely what has been paid when they are returned to the PISP's page. Trust

28 4.1.6 For international payments, consumer research indicates that people find it both appropriate and time saving to be able to choose which account to pay with

and review the account balance once logged onto the ASPSP's domain. Speed

29 4.1.6

Research indicates that consumers would like to see the final cost breakdown for an international payment at the TPP after payment has been authorised.

This would provide transparency and reassurance.

Transparency

30 4.1.6 Both consumer and SME PSUs show a strong preference for the TPP/Merchant to prepopulate their details, as is 'less hassle' for them and reduces the risk

of PSU error.

Speed

Control

31 4.1.6 Consumer research shows that, while PSUs would prefer to see an actual FX rate, they generally accept an indicative rate. Transparency

Control

32 4.1.6 Research shows that SMEs want to know when the payee will receive a payment. They want to be able to select the execution date for the payment in the

ASPSP's domain. Speed

33 4.1.6 Consumer research shows that PSUs want to see the FX currency conversion rate and, ideally, the amount of the payment in £. Transparency

34 4.1.6

Consumers wish to see the details of urgency (timings and/or method), charges and FX rates before consenting to international payments. Research shows

they appreciate extra levels of detail, such as the expected date of the payment reaching its destination. Any additional information should be clearly

explained.

Transparency

35 4.1.7

Research amongst SMEs has shown that those with experience of bulk/batch transfers have a clear understanding of issues such as cut-off times and the

importance of accuracy in preparing batches of payments. There is a clear expectation that new processes (both at PISP and ASPSP) will be as closely

analogous to existing methods as possible.

Transparency

Control

36 4.1.7 Research amongst SMEs has shown that those with experience of bulk/batch transfers would value the facility to view the detai ls of payments included in a

bulk/batch file once it has been uploaded to their ASPSP. Control






37 4.1.7 Research amongst SME PSUs indicates they would like to be able to select multiple payment accounts when setting up bulk/batch payments. Control

38 4.1.7 Research indicates that SME PSUs value having a summary information step page as part of the bulk/batch payment process to act as a check, including a

'cancel' option to minimise the chance of errors. Control

39 4.1.7 Research indicates that most SMEs would like the opportunity to check details at each stage of the bulk/batch payments journey, to minimise the risk of

mistakes. Control

40 4.2 Consumer research has shown that 80% of people would prefer a warning about breach of contract at the point before they confi rm the consent revocation. Transparency

41 5.1.1 Research has shown that consumers have no initial understanding of CBPIIs, or a Confirmation of Funds process, indicating that the process needs to be

clearly explained during any journeys.

Trust

Transparency

42 5.1.2 Research indicates that PSUs want to be able to review 'Confirmation of Funds‘(CoF) consents via a dashboard at their ASPSP. Transparency

Control

43 5.1.3 Research indicates that PSUs do not wish to receive notifications of all requests, but would like to be informed of declined or failed requests with the

reasons why these occurred.

Transparency

Control

44 5.1.4

PSUs would like to be able to view the expiration date of their CoF consents through both the ASPSP dashboard and through the CBPII website or app.

PSUs want to be able to revoke their consent from their ASPSP as this is the instinctive place to revoke such consents. They would also like the option to be

able to revoke consent from their CBPII.

Trust

Security







Problem statement

As provided in the P3/P4 Evaluation letter, the OBIE definition of App-to-App is:

'App-to-App' redirection allows the TPP to redirect a PSU from the TPP application (in a mobile web browser or

mobile app) to the ASPSP’s mobile app, installed on the PSU's device, where the TPP is able to transmit details

of the request along with PSU preferences (e.g. product type, one-step authentication) and deep link the PSU into

the ASPSP app login screen or function. The PSU is then authenticated through their app using the same

credentials/methods as normally used when the PSU directly accesses their account using the app (typically

biometric). This must not involve any additional steps (such as being redirected first to a web page to select which

ASPSP app to use) and must not require the PSU to provide any PSU identifier or other credentials to the

ASPSP if their current ASPSP app does not require this. Where the PSU does not have the ASPSP's mobile app,

they should experience a redirection flow which should not involve additional steps than would be the case when

the PSU authenticates with the ASPSP directly (e.g. be redirected to the ASPSP's mobile website).

There have been a number of technical and security challenges regarding the implementation of App-to-App.

These are addressed below.

This document does not cover the standards nor implementation of de-coupled flows.

How the redirect flow works

When using a service based on the OBIE API standard for redirection, the PSU will be re-directed twice:

1. From the TPP interface to the ASPSP interface (to authenticate and authorise). The authorisation server URI is

specified by each ASPSP in their .well-known endpoint.

2. Back from the ASPSP interface to the TPP interface (to complete any transaction with the TPP). This redirect is

specified by the TPP as part of the first redirect.

Implementation of deep links

A seamless journey for the PSU, which bypasses the built in browser (e.g. Safari) on their mobile device, can be

implemented for any URL, ie BOTH a) for the initial redirect which the TPP sends the PSU to on the ASPSP's

servers, AND b) the redirect URL which the ASPSP sends the PSU back to after authentication/authorisation.

Both ASPSPs and TPPs should follow the guidance from Apple and Google below:

iOS: https://developer.apple.com/ios/universal-links/ (covers over 99% of all iOS users1, who are on iOS 9 or

greater).

Android: https://developer.android.com/training/app-links/index.html (covers 65% of all Android users2, who are on

Android 6.0 or later).

In the event that a PSU does not have the app installed on their device, or if they have an older (or non

iOS/Android, e.g. Windows Mobile) operating system, these methods will allow the PSU to be re-directed to a

mobile web page.

Open Banking Directory implications

In order to support multiple apps for a given brand (e.g. Brand X Personal App, Brand X Business App), ASPSPs

will need to configure multiple 'virtual' .well-known configuration endpoints for each physical authorisation server

listed on the Open Banking Directory. The Open Banking Directory will be updated to facilitate this functionality.

Security considerations

Security considerations are addressed here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8252.

You can find the most updated paper version of this here: Deep linking for App-to-App redirection


https://developer.apple.com/ios/universal-links/



https://developer.android.com/training/app-links/index.html



https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8252

https://openbanking.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DZ/pages/23889379/Deep+linking+for+App-to-App+redirection











Standing Order Frequency Examples

Every day

Every working day

Every week, on the 3rd day of the week

Every 2nd week, on the 3rd day of the week

Every month, on the 2nd week of the month, and on the 3rd day of the week

Every month, on the last day of the month

Every 6th month, on the 15th day of the month

Paid on the 25th March, 24th June, 29th September and 25th December



Payments initiated by PISPs using Open Banking Write APIs, should be able to

cover the following international payments charge models:

• "SHARE" transfer: The sender PSU of the payment will pay fees to the

sending bank for the outgoing transfer charges. The receiver PSU will receive

the amount transferred, minus the correspondent (intermediary) bank

charges.

• "OUR" transfer: All fees will be charged to the sender PSU of the payment -

i.e. the receiver PSU gets the full amount sent by the sender of the payment.

Any charges applied by the receiving bank will be billed to the sender of the

payment (usually sometime after sending the payment)

• "BEN" transfer: BEN (beneficiary) means that the sender PSU of the

payments does not pay any charges.. The receiver PSU of the payment

receives the payment minus all transfer charges, including the sending bank

charges if any.





Data Field Description

The Account Holders Name The recipient's full name

SWIFT/BIC Code A SWIFT Code consists of 8 or 11 characters, both

numbers and letters e.g. RFXLGB2L.

Sort Code UK Bank code (6 digits usually displayed as 3 pairs of

numbers), optional if within EEA

Routing Number The American Bankers Association Number (consists of

9 digits) and is also called a ABA Routing Number

Routing Code Any other local Bank Code - e.g. BSB number in

Australia and New Zealand (6 digits)

IFSC Code Indian Financial System Code, which is a unique 11-digit

code that identifies the bank branch i.e. ICIC0001245.

IBAN The International Bank Account Number

Bank Name The name of the bank where the recipient's account is

held

Bank Address The address of the Beneficiary's bank

Account Number The recipient's bank account number

Receiving Country Currency Information Required Optional Information

UK GBP Account Holder's Name

Account Number

Sort Code

IBAN

SWIFT/BIC code

UK All Other Currencies Account Holder's Name

IBAN

SWIFT/BIC code

Sort Code

All European Countries All Currencies Account Holder's Name

IBAN

SWIFT/BIC code

Hong Kong USD, EUR, GBP Account Holder's Name

IBAN

SWIFT/BIC code

China USD, EUR, GBP Account Holder's Name

Account Number

SWIFT/BIC code

Bank Name

Bank Address

In order to make an International Payment, the ASPSP will need some of the

following details relating to the Beneficiary's bank account: The information required is different for each country. For further information

please see the table below:





India INR Account Holder's

Name

Account Number

IFSC Code

Bank Name

Bank Address

SWIFT/BIC code

India All Other Currencies Account Holder's

Name

Account Number

SWIFT/BIC code

Bank Name

Bank Address

IFSC Code

All Other Countries All Currencies Account Holder's

Name

Account Number

Bank Name

Bank Address

SWIFT/BIC code


Australia /

New Zealand /

South Africa

All Currencies Account Holder's

Name

Account Number

Routing Code

Bank Name

Bank Address

SWIFT/BIC code

Canada All Currencies Account Holder's

Name

Account Number

SWIFT/BIC code

Bank Name

Bank Address

Routing Code

USA All Currencies Account Holder's

Name

Account Number

ABA Number

Bank Name

Bank Address

SWIFT/BIC code

Note: Whilst the SWIFT BIC is required to route the payments, for payments in

Euro the customer does not have to provide this, the sending bank must derive it

from the beneficiary IBAN.







If an AISP is asking for data access solely to a card account they should adjust the

language they use to describe the ASPSP (e.g. “card provider” rather than “bank”) and

certain data clusters and permissions. Card specific language is shown in blue.


Your Card Details

Accounts

Accounts Basic Any other name by which you refer to this account Currency of the account, Nickname of account (e.g. ‘Jakes

Household account’)

Accounts Detail Your account name, number and sort-code

Account Name, Sort Code, Account Number, IBAN, Roll

Number (used for Building Society) (plus all data provided in

Accounts Basic)

Balances Balances Your account balance Amount, Currency, Credit/Debit, Type of Balance, Date/Time,

Credit Line

All where PAN is available PAN Your long card number PAN masked or unmasked depending on how ASPSP

displays online currently

Your Regular Payments

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries Basic Payee agreements you have set up List of Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries Detail Details of Payee agreements you have set up Details of Beneficiaries account information (Name, Sort

Code, Account) (plus all data provided in Beneficiaries Basic)

Standing Orders

Standing Order Basic Your Standing Orders SO Info, Frequency, Creditor Reference Info, First/Next/Final

Payment info

Standing Order Detail Details of your Standing Orders Details of Creditor Account Information (Name, Sort Code,

Account) (plus all data provided in Standing Order Basic)

Direct Debits Direct Debits Your Direct Debits Mandate info, Status, Name, Previous payment information,

Scheduled Payments

Scheduled Payments Basic Recurring and future dated payments from your card

account

Scheduled dates, amount, reference. Does not include

information about the beneficiary

Scheduled Payments Detail Details of recurring and future dated payments from

your card account

Scheduled dates, amount, reference. Includes information

about the beneficiary

Your Card Transactions Transactions Transactions Basic Credits Your incoming transactions Transaction Information on payments made into the


Data Info, Value Date info, Transaction Code). Does not

include information about the entity that made the payment.

Transactions Basic Debits Your outgoing transactions Same as above, but for debits

Transactions Detail Credits Details of your incoming transactions Transaction Information on payments made into the


Data Info, Value Date info, Transaction Code). Includes

information about the entity that made the payment.

Transactions Detailed Debits Details of your outgoing transactions Same as above but for debits





Your Statements Statements

Statements Basic Information contained in your statement All statement information excluding specific amounts related


Statements Detail Details of information contained in your statement All statement information including specific amounts related


Your Card Features and Benefits Offers Offers Offers available on your card account Balance transfer, promotional rates, limit increases, start &

end dates

Your contact details Party Party Your address, telephone numbers and email

address as held by your bank/card provider

Address, telephone numbers and email address as held by

your bank/card issuer, party type (sole/joint etc.)







HTTP Status

Category Code Description

400 UK.OBIE.Field.Expected

For the scenario, when a field-value is not provided in the payload, that is expected in combination with preceding field-value pairs.

The corresponding path must be populated with the path of the unexpected field.

e.g. ExchangeRate must be specified with Agreed RateType. ExchangeRate should be specified in the path element.

InstructionPriority must be specified with Agreed RateType. InstructionPriority should be specified in the path element.

400 UK.OBIE.Field.Invalid An invalid value is supplied in one of the fields. Reference of the invalid field should be provided in the path field, and url field may have the link to a website explaining the

valid behaviour. The error message should describe the problem in detail.

400 UK.OBIE.Field.InvalidDate An invalid date is supplied, e.g., When a future date is expected, a date in past or current date is supplied. The message can specify the actual problem with the date. The

reference of the invalid field should be provided in the path field, and URL field may have the link to a website explaining the valid behaviour

400 UK.OBIE.Field.Missing

A mandatory field, required for the API, is missing from the payload. This error code can be used, if it is not already captured under the validation

for UK.OBIE.Resource.InvalidFormat.

Reference of the missing field should be provided in the path field, and URL field may have the link to a website explaining the valid behaviour

400 UK.OBIE.Field.Unexpected

For the scenario, when a field-value is provided in the payload, that is not expected in combination with preceding field-value pairs. E.g.

ContractIdentification must not be specified with [Actual/Indicative] RateType. ContractIdentification should be specified in the path element

ExchangeRate must not be specified with [Actual/Indicative] RateType. ExchangeRate should be specified in the path element.

InstructionPriority must not be specified with LocalInstrument. InstructionPriority should be specified in the path element.

400 UK.OBIE.Header.Invalid An invalid value is supplied in the HTTP header. HTTP Header should be specified in the path element.

400 UK.OBIE.Header.Missing A required HTTP header has not been provided. HTTP Header should be specified in the path element.

400 UK.OBIE.Resource.ConsentMismatch

{payment-order-consent} and {payment-order} resource mismatch. For example, if an element in the resource’s Initiation or Risk section does not match the consent

section.

The path element should be populated with the field of the resource that does not match the consent.

400 UK.OBIE.Resource.InvalidConsentStatus

The resource’s associated consent is not in a status that would allow the resource to be created. E.g., if a consent resource had a status

of AwaitingAuthorisation or Rejected, a resource could not be created against this consent.

The path element should be populated with the field in the consent resource that is invalid.

400 UK.OBIE.Resource.InvalidFormat When the Payload schema doesn't match to the endpoint, e.g., /domestic-payments endpoint is called with a JSON Payload, which cannot be parsed into a class

OBWriteDomestic1

400 UK.OBIE.Resource.NotFound Returned when a resource with the specified id does not exist (and hence could not be operated upon).

400 UK.OBIE.Rules.AfterCutOffDateTime {payment-order} consent / resource received after CutOffDateTime

400 UK.OBIE.Signature.Invalid The signature header x-jws-signature was parsed and has a valid JOSE header that complies with the specification. However, the signature itself could not be verified.

400 UK.OBIE.Signature.InvalidClaim The JOSE header in the x-jws-signature has one or more claims with an invalid value. (e.g. a kid that does not resolve to a valid certificate). The name of the missing claim

should be specified in the path field of the error response.

400 UK.OBIE.Signature.MissingClaim The JOSE header in the x-jws-signature has one or more mandatory claim(s) that are not specified. The name of the missing claim(s) should be specified in the path field

of the error response.

400 UK.OBIE.Signature.Malformed The x-jws-signature in the request header was malformed and could not be parsed as a valid JWS.

400 UK.OBIE.Signature.Missing The API request expected an x-jws-signature in the header, but it was missing.




HTTP Status

Category Code Description

400 UK.OBIE.Signature.Unexpected The API request was not expecting to receive an x-jws-signature in the header, but the TPP made a request that included an x-jws-signature.

400 UK.OBIE.Unsupported.AccountIdentifier The account identifier is unsupported for the given scheme.

The path element should be populated with the path of the AccountIdentifier.

400 UK.OBIE.Unsupported.AccountSecondaryIdentifier The account secondary identifier is unsupported for the given scheme.

The path element should be populated with the path of the AccountSecondaryIdentifier.

400 UK.OBIE.Unsupported.Currency

The currency is not supported. Use UK.OBIE.Field.Invalid for invalid Currency.

The path element should be populated with the path of the Currency.

The URL should be populated with a link to ASPSP documentation listing out the supported currencies.

400 UK.OBIE.Unsupported.Frequency

Frequency is not supported.

The path element should be populated with the path of the Frequency.

The URL should be populated with a link to ASPSP documentation listing out the supported frequencies.

400 UK.OBIE.Unsupported.LocalInstrument

Local Instrument is not supported by the ASPSP.

The path element should be populated with the path of the LocalInstrument.

The URL should be populated with a link to ASPSP documentation listing out the supported local instruments.

400 UK.OBIE.Unsupported.Scheme

Identification scheme is not supported.

The path element should be populated with the path of the scheme.

The URL should be populated with a link to ASPSP documentation listing out the supported schemes.

5xx UK.OBIE.UnexpectedError An error code that can be used, when an unexpected error occurs.

The ASPSP must populated the message with a meaningful error description, without revealing sensitive information.


7.7 Change Log



7.7 Change Log


Item Page Sub-section Description of Change

Section 2: Authentication

1 19 2.2.1 Browser based redirection - PIS Changed: The journey has been updated to reflect 4.1.1 changes.

2 20 2.2.1 Browser based redirection - PIS Changed: The wireframe has been updated to reflect 4.1.1 changes.

3 21 2.2.1 Browser based redirection - PIS CX#5

Removed: ASPSP should display the amount and payee of the payment as part of the authentication journey.

Changed: CX#5 to checklist item 5:

ASPSPs must display as minimum the Payment Amount, Currency and the Payee Account Name to make the PSU aware of these details (unless an SCA exemption is being applied).

These details must be displayed as part of the authentication journey on at least one of the following screens without introducing additional confirmation screens (unless supplementary information is

required, refer to section 4.1.2).

1. PISP to ASPSP redirection screen.

2. Authentication screen.

3. ASPSP to PISP redirection screen.

4 18 2.2.1 Browser based re-direction CX#2 Updated from: The AISP should make the PSU aware that they will be taken to their ASPSP for authentication.

Updated to: The ASPSP should make the PSU aware that they will be taken to their ASPSP for authentication.

5 21 2.2.1 PIS - CEG requirement 6

Updated from: The ASPSP web based authentication must have no more than the number of steps that the PSU would experience when directly accessing the web based ASPSP channel

(desktop/mobile).

Updated to: The ASPSP web based authentication must have no more than the number of steps that the PSU would experience when making a payment directly through the ASPSP web based

channel (desktop/mobile)

6 23 2.2.2 Updated: The annotations have been updated.

7 26 2.2.2 App based redirection - PIS Changed: The wireframe has been changed.

8 27 2.2.2 App based redirection - PIS CX#5

Removed: ASPSP should display the amount and payee of the payment as part of the authentication journey.

Changed: CX#5 to checklist item 5

ASPSPs must display as minimum the Payment Amount, Currency and the Payee Account Name to make the PSU aware of these details (unless an SCA exemption is being applied).


required, refer to section 4.1.2).


2. Authentication screen.


9 29 2.2.5 Effective use of redirection screens

Updated: A lightbulb has been added with the following text:

"A two to three second delay on the redirections screens, may encourage wider take up without causing irritation as the time delay provides reassurance of the bank’s involvement. This is important to

older consumers and the less financially savvy“.

10 33 2.3.1 Model A Checklist #5 Updated: The following reg reference has been added:

RTS Art. 5(1)(a) Checklist reference 28.

11 37 2.3.2 Model B Changed: CX 6 to Checklist#6, the following reference has been added: RTS Art. 5(1)(a) Checklist reference 28.

12 40 2.3.2 Model C Changed: CX 5 to Checklist#5, the following reference has been added: RTS Art. 5(1)(a) Checklist reference 28.

13 43 2.3.4 Model D Checklist #2 Changed: The following ref reference has been added:

RTS Art. 5(1)(a) Checklist reference 28.


Updates from v1.0 to v1.0.1

7.7 Change Log



Section 3: AIS

14 52 Refreshing AISP access

90 day access period

Updated: The following text has been added:

For example, let's say the PSU (on 14 January 2018) consents to AISP1 accessing the last three years' of account information (i.e. from 15 January 2015 -14 January 20189) from ASPSP2 with the

consent validity lasting until 31 December 2018. ASPSP2 offers AISP1 three years of account information in the first access request after SCA has been performed. If ASPSP2 is applying the Art. 10

exemption, AISP1 can then continue to access either or both of the account balance and/or the last 90 days’ payment transactions without SCA having to be performed again until 14 April 2018.

However, SCA will have to be performed:

• At any time AISP1 requests more than either or both of the account balance and/or 90 days of payment transactions

• AISP1 requests account information after 14 April 2018; or

• At any time the PSU carries out any action through a remote channel which may imply a risk of payment fraud or other abuses.

The application of SCA by the ASPSP is the only step required by the ASPSP in these scenarios and the PSU must not be required to go through the same account(s) selection process to confirm the

access.

In this example, the PSU will need to provide a new consent for the AISP to access the account information after 31 December 2018.

15 53 3.1.3 Consent Dashboard & Revocation Changed: Images have been changed to reflect that the entire consent can be revoked and not individual accounts (as this is not supported).

16 54 3.1.3 Consent Dashboard & Revocation Changed: Images have been changed to reflect that the entire consent can be revoked and not individual accounts (as this is not supported).

17 57 3.1.4 Access Dashboard & Revocation Updated: The TPP order list has been corrected in the wireframe.

18 61 3.2 Permissions and Data Clusters for AIS journeys Changed: The following description for the Product has been added: Refers to customer account product details defined in the Open data API ( the fees, charges, interest, benefits/rewards). Applicable

to PCA and BCA.

Section 4: PIS

19 63 Page 63 4.1 PIS Core Journeys introduction Updated: The reference has been fixed to Checklist item 21.

20 63 4.1 PIS Core Journeys

Updated: The following has been added: If the customer is able to initiate, for example, international payments, recurring transactions or a batch file of payments online, they should also be able to do

so via a PISP, irrespective of the channel the customer has used to access the PISP1.

1 - FCA consultation on updated Approach to RTS and EBA guidelines under revised PSD2 and CEG Checklist Reference ref 28.

21 64 4.1.1 Updated: The journey has been updated.

22 65 4.1.1 Updated: The wireframe has been updated.

23 65 4.1.1 Single Domestic Payments - a/c selection

@PISP

Updated: The position of annotation 11 has been updated.

Changed: 6 has been annotated to represent optionality.

24 66 4.1.1 Checklist item#8

Updated from: ASPSPs must inform PSUs about their “point of no return” for making the payment and that their payment will be made after authentica tion occurs. Example wording: "Authenticate to

make payment”

Updated to: SCA Authentication (including dynamic linking) must be the only action required at the ASPSPs (unless supplementary information required, refer to section 4.1.2).

25 66 4.1.1 Checklist item#6

Updated from : ASPSPs must display as minimum the Payment Amount and Currency and the Payee Account Name to comply with dynamic linking obligations.

Updated to: ASPSPs must display as minimum the Payment Amount, Currency and the Payee Account Name to make the PSU aware of these details (unless an SCA exemption is being applied).


required, refer to section 4.1.2)




26 77 4.1.4 CX #10 Updated references to 4.1.1



7.7 Change Log



Section 4: PIS


@ PISP. CEG Checklist requirements. Item #6

Formatting of must:

ASPSPs must display as minimum the Payment Amount, Currency and the Payee Account Name to make the PSU aware of these details (unless an SCA exemption is being applied). These details

must be displayed as part of the authentication journey on at least one of the following screens without introducing additional confirmation screens (unless supplementary information is required, refer to

section 4.1.2)


2. ASPSPs Authentication screen



@ PISP. CX #7

Updated: To include a bullet point for biometric clarification as follows:

ASPSPs should inform PSUs about their “point of no return” for making the payment and that their payment will be made after authentication occurs. Example wording: "Authenticate to make payment”

For recognition based biometrics (e.g. Face ID) which can be more immediate the biometric authentication should be invoked after a delay or through a call to action to allow the PSU the ability to view

the details.

ASPSPs could display the balance of PSUs payment account (not shown on user journey) as part of the authentication journey on any of the following screens:

1. ASPSPs Authentication screen.


Displaying the balance in this instance need not require any additional strong customer authentication.

(an ASPSP for instance could use device identification as form of a soft authentication to identify the PSU and display the balance).

29 67 4.1.1 CX#7

Updated: Ton include a new bullet points:

ASPSPs should inform PSUs about their “point of no return” for making the payment and that their payment will be made after authentication occurs. Example wording: "Authenticate to make payment”

ASPSPs could display the balance of PSUs payment account (not shown on user journey) as part of the authentication journey on any of the following screens:

• PISP to ASPSP redirection screen

• Authentication screen

Displaying the balance in this instance need not require any additional authentication.

(an ASPSP for instance could use device identification as form of a soft authentication to identify the PSU and display the balance).

30 67 4.1.1 CX#8

Removed: #8

Removed: If SCA as described in item #9 cannot occur on the same screen as #6 and #7 of displaying the amount and the payee (e.g. for some biometric authentications methods), then

ASPSPs should offer PSUs options to proceed or cancel the payment with "equal prominence”

Changed: The points have been reordered.

31 70 4.1.2 Checklist #12and #14 Updated: References to 4.1.1 have been updated.

32 70 4.1.2 CX #11and #13 Updated: References to 4.1.1 have been updated.

33 74 4.1.3 Checklist #13 and #14 Updated: References to 4.1.1 have been updated.

34 74 4.1.3 CX #12 Updated: References to 4.1.1 have been updated.

35 75 4.1.4 Updated: The journey has been updated to reflect supplementary information.

36 76 4.1.4 Updated: The wireframe has been updated to reflect supplementary information.

37 77 4.1.4 Checklist #11 and #13 Updated: References to 4.1.1 have been updated.



7.7 Change Log



Section 4: PIS

39 78 4.1.4 CX#8

Removed: #8




39 77 4.1.4 Checklist #7 and #8 Changed: The order has been swapped.

40 77 4.1.4 Checklist #8

Removed: ASPSPs must display as minimum the Payment Amount and Currency and the Payee Account Name to comply with dynamic linking obligations.

ASPSPs must display the payment details and any supplementary information about difference in actual execution date

Changed: The following reference has been added: • EBA Draft Guideline 5.2(d), RTS Art. 5(1)(a)Added: Checklist 20,28.

41 77 4.1.4 CX #9

Updated from: ASPSPs should inform PSUs about their “point of no return” for making the payment and that their payment will be made after authentication occurs. Example wording: "Authenticate to

make payment”

Updated to: ASPSPs should inform PSUs about their “point of no return” for making the payment and that their payment will be made after pressing the Proceed button. Example wording: “Press

Proceed to make payment“.

42 78 4.1.5 Updated: The journey has been updated to reflect supplementary information.

43 79 4.1.5 Updated: The wireframe has been updated to reflect supplementary information.

44 81 4.1.5 CX#8

Removed: #8




45 80 4.1.5 Checklist #8

Updated from: ASPSPs must display as minimum the Payment Amount and Currency and the Payee Account Name to comply with dynamic linking obligations.

Updated to: ASPSPs must display the payment details, schedule any supplementary information about difference in actual execution day for each transaction.

Changed: The following reference has been added: • EBA Draft Guideline 5.2(d), RTS Art. 5(1)(a).

Changed: Checklist reference 20 and 28 have been added.

46 80 4.1.5 Checklist #7# 11 and #13 Updated: References to 4.1.1 have been updated.

47 81 4.1.5 CX #9

Updated from: ASPSPs should inform PSUs about their “point of no return” for making the payment and that their payment will be made after authentication occurs. Example wording: "Authenticate to

make payment”

Updated to: ASPSPs should inform PSUs about their “point of no return” for making the payment and that their payment will be made after pressing the Proceed button. Example wording: “Press

Proceed to make payment“.


49 85 4.1.6 Checklist #8# 16 and #18 Updated: References to 4.1.1 have been updated.

50 85 4.1.6 CX # 15 and #17 Updated: References to 4.1.1 have been updated.

51 89 4.1.7 Checklist #6, # 7 and #8 Updated: References to 4.1.1 have been updated.




7.7 Change Log



Section 4: PIS

53 94 4.1.7 Checklist #6, # 15 Updated: References to 4.1.1 have been updated.


Section 5: CBPII

55 104 5.1.2 Access Dashboard & Revocation

Updated from:

CoF Access History

For each CBPII having CoF access, ASPSPs should display the PSUs account details including account name, sort code, account number and expiration date and time.

ASPSPs must also provide PSUs the ability to request all the CoF access history (CoF requests and responses) under a specific CBPII. This must include the identity of the CBPII who made the

request, and the response (Y/N) given. The history could also include the following:

• the date the Confirmation of Funds request has been received by the ASPSP



Please note that in case ASPSPs are unable to provide a response to a CoF request to the CBPII, a reason should be provided in the history entry for this CoF request.

Updated to:

CoF Access History

For each CBPII having CoF access, ASPSPs should display the PSUs account details including account name, sort code, account number and expiration date and time.

ASPSPs must also provide PSUs the ability to request all the CoF access history (CoF requests and responses) under a specific CBPII.

This must include the identity of the CBPII who made the request, and the response (Y/N) given.

ASPSPs should provide this functionality via the Access Dashboard.

The COF history could also include the following:

• the date the Confirmation of Funds request has been received by the ASPSP



Please note that in case ASPSPs are unable to provide a response to a CoF request to the CBPII, a reason should be provided in the history entry for this CoF request.

Section 6: Checklist

56 118 6.2.1 Examples and additional detail for CEG

Checklist questions #21

Updated: the following wording has been added:

Functionality – payment initiation

For example, even if an international payment can only be made through a web browser when a PSU accesses the ASPSP directly, the PSU should must be able to make an international payment via a

PISP irrespective of authentication channel.

Section 7: Appendix

57 124 7.2 CX Guidelines Consultation – Research Data

# 5: Journey Ref 2.2.5

Updated:

Research amongst consumers and SME PSUs has shown that the presence of the ASPSP's logo on the PISP to ASPSP redirection screen is important (70% and 74% respectively saying this) and that

it makes them trust the process more (66% and 77%) respectively.

A two to three second delay on the redirection screens, may encourage wider take up without causing irritation as the time delay provides reassurance of the bank’s involvement. This is important to

older consumers and the less financially savvy.

58 136 7.5 Card-specific Permissions and Data Clusters for

AIS journeys Updated: The Product row has been removed as it is only applicable to PCA and BCA.



1.1. An Introduction to Open Banking

Date post:	18-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	23 times
Download:	0 times

Open Banking Customer Experience Guidelines...1.3 The Open Banking Customer Journey Customer...

Documents